Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (By Order)

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL (By Order)

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL(By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 February.

GRAMPIAN REGIONAL COUNCIL (HARBOURS) ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Grampian Regional Council (Harbours): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 11 February and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Metropolitan Police Precept

Mr. Cohen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what percentage above the rate of inflation the cumulative increase in the Metropolitan police precept has been since 1979.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): No direct comparison is possible of precepts from 1979 to 1986 because of changes to the rate support grant arrangements in 1981 and 1983. The ratepayers' contribution to Metropolitan police expenditure was £174 million in 1981–82, rising to £258 million in 1986–87. This represents an increase of just over 15·5 per cent, above the rate of inflation.

Mr. Cohen: Did not London's local authority associations recently tell the Home Secretary that they thought that the Metropolitan police accounting and

financial management systems were archaic, that there was little budgetary control and that the basic financial management system was insufficient to make sensible decisions? When will the Minister stop neglecting this matter and carry out his job of ensuring that value is obtained for the money handed out by London taxpayers and ratepayers? Is he aware that if he does not do that the crime rate will continue to worsen?

Mr. Hurd: Value for money is extremely important in Metropolitan police expenditure, as in that of any other police authority. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Metropolitan police keep in close touch with London local authorities and are always seeking means of obtaining greater value for money and, indeed, of getting police officers on to the streets.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Metropolitan police on their magnificent efforts, in apprehending the rapists in the Ealing vicarage case? It took them 10 days and nights to achieve that, and they have not had the support that they should have from the courts.

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I will indeed do that.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Home Secretary consider increasing the Metropolitan police precept so that the special branch can be trained to draft search warrants properly?

Mr. Hurd: That has been amply debated in the House. I have nothing to add to what has already been said.

Mr. Marlow: What would happen to the cost of the Metropolitan police if they were put under the democratic supervision of Mr. Bernie Grant, and who could then expect a knock on the door at 3 am?

Mr. Hurd: It would be a disaster for the Metropolitan police and, indeed, for other police forces if the Labour party were ever in a position to implement the policy that it has now clearly set out, that police forces should be under the supervision of local councils.

Police Officers (Compensation)

Mrs. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in 1985 and 1986.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): In the financial year 1985–86 the board resolved a total of 1,755 cases involving injuries to police officers on duty, including cases in which no award was made.

Mrs. Golding: I am sure that all hon. Members welcome the talks that the Minister has been having with the Police Federation to try to enable benefits to be continued. Will the Minister also have talks with the train drivers' union, as members of that union suffer nervous shock as a result of the increase in suicides on the railways these days? Will the Minister assure the House that he will have such talks soon, and, when he does, will he remember that but for the actions of two people closely related to him who were also railwaymen he would not grace the House with his presence today?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Lady refers to my grandfathers. As she well knows, both were railway workers and


obviously I am proud of that fact. I shall certainly be willing to see Mr. Buckton and his colleagues. My difficulty is that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is intended to deal with criminal injuries arising from crimes of violence. However tragic the consequences for a number of train drivers, it is difficult to see the nervous shock that they suffer as a result of the thoroughly unpleasant experience of hitting suicides as being quite in that context. That is why I do not want to hold out too many hopes, but if the unions wish to see me I shall, of course, see them.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the risk of injury to policemen would be very much less if Opposition Members could restrain their warlike friends at Wapping?

Mr. Mellor: In the last incident at Wapping, 150 police officers were injured. I hope that anyone with any influence over those who do that sort of thing will call for restraint.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister confirm that the Criminal Justice Bill, as drafted, effectively excludes many police officers from making claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme and that, furthermore, the recent lifting of the lower threshold for eligibility from £400 to £550 will debar some 28 per cent. of all claimants, including many police officers? Is not the truth that the Government care little about victims, whether they be ordinary citizens or policemen?

Mr. Mellor: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, since in the next financial year we shall be spending, in real terms, three and a half times as much as the Labour Government did on the criminal injuries compensation scheme. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the police, in the Bill as drafted there is one marginal but significant difference concerning the rights of the police. We have agreed to correct it so that the Bill will reflect the present position regarding the police. On the question of the lower limit, everyone agrees that there should be a threshold. Around 20 per cent. of those who are eligible at present will not be eligible under the new threshold. The new threshold is equivalent to approximately three times the weekly national average wage. That was the basis upon which the scheme was first established in 1964.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend accept that, whatever the figure, it is insufficient to compensate the police of this country for their dedication when they stand up to gunmen, armed robbers and the people who man the picket lines at Wapping and elsewhere?

Mr. Mellor: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is one of the proudest claims of this Government that we have markedly improved the pay and conditions of the police to compensate them for the very real risks inherent in carrying out their vital task.

Voluntary Bodies (Funding)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from voluntary bodies concerning their funding; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellor: The Home Office makes grants to more than 100 voluntary organisations and to about 350 hostels and local bodies providing accommodation or facilities for

offenders. We have received 19 representations about funding in the current financial year. We have been able to offer additional resources in eight cases and a further five cases are still under consideration.

Mr. Kirkwood: Leaving aside the important problem of the lack of adequate resources for some of these organisations, does the Minister agree that there is a lack of consistency in the way in which all Government Departments process applications from and give grants to voluntary organisations? Will he give the House an undertaking that he will be prepared to review the procedures used by his Department and others so that a common, logical and consistent system can be applied to all Departments and all voluntary organisations?

Mr. Mellor: I can speak only for the Home Office, but we are always willing to look at the basis upon which we make grants. Indeed, we have a close relationship with the various vital bodies to which we make grants. Our willingness always to reconsider the level of funding in appropriate circumstances is testimony to the free interchange of information between us.

Mr. Waller: Does my hon. Friend accept that we should back those bodies which are very successfully providing alternatives to custody for young offenders? Is he aware that many local authority social services departments resent the success that such bodies are enjoying in providing intermediate treatment and that local authority funding is therefore being withdrawn? Will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to see whether a more secure future can be provided for these very valuable bodies'?

Mr. Mellor: I know of the local case that concerns my hon. Friend. The Government have put some £15 million of new resources into intermediate treatment schemes, and it is regrettable that the schemes are not receiving the support that they should from some local authorities in taking up that funding, even when the schemes have shown themselves to he successful. It would be regrettable if the Government were left to pick up the bill on a continuing basis when local authorities, which serve local communities, have everything to gain from these facilities being in existence in their areas.

Greater Manchester (Police Car Pursuits)

Mr. Litherland: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Greater Manchester as to the number of deaths and serious accidents resulting from police car pursuits in the Greater Manchester area during the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The chief constable of Greater Manchester has informed me that from I June 1986 to 31 December 1986 his force's police vehicls were involved in one fatal accident, in which a person was killed, I I accidents causing serious injury, and 82 accidents in which there was slight injury. These figures include all accidents, not just those arising from pursuits. Information for the rest of 1986 and earlier years can be obtained only at disproportionate cost, but with effect from the beginning of 1987 arrangements have been made for collecting statistics on police vehicle accidents involving death or serious injury in all force areas.

Mr. Litherland: Is the Minister aware that in a recent car pursuit in the centre of Manchester there was a tragic loss of life—that of a young, innocent 17-year-old, Tracey McCaig? Will he consider issuing strict instructions to the chief constable of Greater Manchester to adhere to the policy in the police drivers' manual, which says:
No emergency is so urgent as to justify an accident"?
We are talking about deaths. When will the Minister accept responsibility and take some action?

Mr. Hogg: The death of Tracey McCaig was a tragedy, and I know that the House will wish to express its sympathy to her family and friends. However, it is necessary to put it into perspective. In 1985, in the Greater Manchester area, there was a fleet of about 1,000 vehicles which covered about 20 million miles and were involved in a total of 1,583 accidents. Nevertheless, that accident was a tragedy.

Sir Philip Goodhart: As the problem of police pursuits is not confined to Greater Manchester—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, the original question is.

Police (Firearms)

Mrs. Dunwoody: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to increase the training available to authorised firearms users in the police force.

Mr. Hurd: I have accepted the conclusion of the Home Office working group on police use of firearms that the recommended length of initial and refresher training for authorised firearms officers is sufficient.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Home Secretary satisfied that on all occasions only fully trained officers will be issued with firearms? There are increasing numbers of occasions when firearms are issued. Would it not be better to have longer, more specialised training, and fewer people involved in the issue of firearms?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady may wish to look at the summary of the working group's proposals, which I have put in the Library. I entirely agree with her—it is important that the number of authorised firearms officers be reduced. There was a reduction of 21 per cent. between the end of 1983 and the end of 1985, and the report points to a further reduction. In addition, the number of occasions on which the police have drawn firearms has also been declining.

Sir John Farr: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what matters is not necessarily the amount of training but the type of training? Does he also agree that it is important that people of the right calibre are selected for firearms training in the first place?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the two essential points—the selection of officers in the first place and the content of the training. The authority required for the drawing and use of firearms is also an important element.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The Home Secretary will be aware of the unanswered questions surrounding the shooting of Mrs. Cherry Groce in my constituency. Will he fulfil his commitment of 11 November 1985 to the Lambeth police

consultative group that he would publish the findings of the inquiry if disciplinary charges were not brought against Inspector Lovelock?

Mr. Hurd: It is not for me to publish those findings. When I wrote to Mr. Parkinson the letter that the hon. Gentleman has seen, the Police Complaints Authority was intending to publish a summary of the investigation which took place under its supervision. Since then, Inspector Lovelock has faced trial on these matters. As a result, the PCA decided that it would not re-issue a lot of material that had come out in the trial but would issue a press release instead. The hon. Gentleman has seen that press release.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter, I shall be glad to arrange for him to meet Sir Cecil Clothier. In response to several press reports, I should like to make it clear, regarding the possible consumption of alcohol tine day before, that I understand that the investigation showed that Inspector Lovelock had had one drink at a retirement party the evening before the raid on Mrs. Groce's home.

Mr. Canavan: Is it not an absolute disgrace that innocent people can he gunned down by policemen on the street or even in their homes and the police seem to get off scot-free? In view of the experience of even more violent societies, such as the United States of America, is it not likely that the increasing practice of policemen in this country using guns will lead to an increase in the number of criminals carrying guns? Will not the resultant violent and vicious circle lead to even more innocent people being injured or killed?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong and prejudiced on all points. There have been at least two well-reported cases recently in which police officers have been prosecuted in the courts for the use of firearms. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on his basic facts. It is important that those facts should be understood. The number of authorised firearms officers in the police service has been declining sharply. The number of operations on which police officers have drawn firearms has also been declining in recent years. The total number of occasions on which the police used firearms in England and Wales in 1985 was seven. The total for New York city in the same year was well over 200.

Mr. Soley: Will the Home Secretary answer this specific question? Is it not true that the report which recommended no increase in training did so because the number of times that officers were authorised to draw arms had riot significantly increased? Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that, given the consequences of the recent killings for individuals, society and the police, that is riot a satisfactory argument for not increasing training and is entirely unacceptable to the House?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has not taken into account the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). What is crucial is not the length of training, but its content and effectiveness. I am willing to discuss this point with the hon. Gentleman or with any other hon. Member at any time. The content and effectiveness of the training, together with the selection of officers, are crucial. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with his respect for accuracy, will not pursue the legend that the use of firearms by police is increasing.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous and dangerous nonsense to suggest that criminals carry guns because policemen carry guns? If it were not for the criminals, policemen would not need to carry guns. The attitude "It was a wicked dog—it bit me when I kicked it" is outrageous. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attitude expressed by the Opposition encourages the need for policemen to carry guns?

Mr. Hurd: One of the reassuring things which I have found as Home Secretary is the conviction among all sections of the police—from the chief officers to the Police Federation—that they want to adhere as closely as possible to the tradition of unarmed British policing, and I entirely agree with them. Of course there are occasions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has said, when armed criminals or armed suspects are about and the police need to draw and protect themselves with firearms. The police and I are determined that those occasions should be kept to a minimum.

Licensing Laws

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to seek to amend the licensing laws.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The Government believe that there is a strong case for some relaxation of the restrictions on licensing hours and are carefully considering what measures would be appropriate.

Mr. MacKay: As the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), which sensibly sought to amend the licensing laws, was widely regarded in the country but was effectively talked out last Friday, does my right hon. and learned Friend think that it would be right and proper for the House to have an opportunity to vote on such legislation in the very near future?

Mr. Waddington: I know of the disappointment felt by many hon. Members when the Bill was talked out and that many hon. Members recognise that the time has come for some reform of the licensing laws.

Mr. Canavan: Time, gentlemen, please.

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend will know, however, that whether the Government give time for a private Member's measure is nothing to do with me.

Mr. Bagier: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the licensing laws are archaic and out of date and that if the Bill had been given a fair wind last Friday it would probably have been passed by the House? Does he agree that it is nonsense for drinking on controlled premises to be so restrictive when people can now buy drinks at off-licences, supermarkets and so many other places? That has created a situation which worries many hon. Members. Will the right hon.and learned Gentleman ensure that at the earliest possible opportunity there is some alteration in the laws to make them more sensible?

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing his views so forcefully and it is nice to know that there is strong support from hon. Members on both sides of the House for some necessary reform of the licensing laws. However, I cannot help the hon.
Gentleman further than I have done already, because thought must he given to the precise measure of reform that should be introduced.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for what he has said. However, is he aware that more than 160 right hon. and hon. Members were present on Friday to support the Licensing (Amendment) Bill? Does he agree that the climate of opinion is now such that the status quo is no longer an option? Does he further agree that it would be reasonable, before the Second Reading debate on 27 March, for the Government to announce either that they will give a modest allocation of time to the private Member's Bill, or make an absolute commitment to their own legislation at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Waddington: I cannot add to what I said a few minutes ago about whether the Government should provide time for that measure. However, I am quite sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) for having introduced that measure. I do not believe that there are many hon. Members who feel that he has wasted his time. It is as a result of the efforts of people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood that there has been a movement in public opinion over the months and that we have got nearer the time when that reform will come about.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Minister distinguish between flexible hours and extended hours and advise the House whether he favours the former more than the latter?

Mr. Waddington: I mentioned earlier that no decision has been reached as to the precise nature of any legislation. Our preferred system would not impose heavy work loads on the courts and police, but it would be important to maintain proper safeguards on licensed outlets and protect the public from added noise and nuisance. Obviously, one must bear in mind the risk of added noise and nuisance when making a decision as to what the latest closing hour should be.

Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. and learned Friend publish, in the appropriate place, the overwhelming market research that his Department has undertaken to show that it is in the public interest to reform the present antiquated laws, which were brought in 71 years ago in wartime conditions?

Mr. Waddington: There has been a fair amount of research into that matter. No doubt my hon. Friend and, indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House, will have read the results of the study by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys into what has happened in Scotland since the change in the law there in 1976. Any impartial person would conclude from that study that no deleterious results had occurred in Scotland as a result of the liberalisation that was introduced there.

Mr. Mason: In view of the Minister's determined support—he is obviously speaking on behalf of the Government—will he be more specific and tell the House what he intends to do? Will he allow more time for the private Member's Bill, or will he introduce legislation this Session?

Mr. Waddington: I have already told the House, in reply to questions from other hon. Members, that the


question whether the Government should give time for a private Member's Bill is not a matter for me. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government have never given time for any private Member's Bill during the course of this Parliament, so he may think it unlikely that the Government will give time for this measure. I thought that I had been fairly forthcoming in answer to all these questions, and I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman more about the precise timing of the introduction of any measure which may be introduced.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that the call "Time, ladies and gentlemen please" is well overdue for the reform of these antiquated laws? Does he agree that the area that we have the honour to represent, Lancashire, if no other, is firmly and forcefully in favour of change, and change now?

Mr. Waddington: Lancashire folk are sensible folk, and I have no doubt that they are in favour of reform.

Fraud

Mr. Tom Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fraud cases have been investigated by the Metropolitan police's fraud investigation squad; and how many have resulted in conviction.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I understand from the Commissioner that 511 new investigations were undertaken by the Metropolitan police company fraud investigation squad during 1986. Information about the number of investigations which result in conviction is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but is the Minister aware that it shows the ever-increasing number of fraud cases that are now coming to the surface—some of them extremely complex and many of them in the City? Against the background, can he give an assurance that the police will have the required number of personnel and facilities to enable them to tackle this growing amount of crime?

Mr. Hogg: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government are already extremely worried about this and for that reason have introduced through the Criminal Justic Bill provisions to give a new serious fraud office extensive powers of investigation. We have also greatly increased the powers of the courts to try such cases. I hope that we shall have the hon. Gentleman's congratulations and support.

Mr. Dykes: May I congratulate the Government on the measures taken so far, but, sadly, also say that the fraud squad still is relatively overwhelmed? Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider the need to increase yet again the number of personnel and to intensify their traning in depth?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is always right to draw attention to these matters, but the figures are perhaps not so discouraging as he thinks. In 1985, for example, the police cleared up about 68 per cent. of all recorded cases of fraud and of the cases tried at the Crown Court involving fraud, acquittals accounted for only about 11 per cent.

Mr. Skinner: If the special branch and the Metropolitan police have so many people that they can clear out the

archives of the BBC in Scotland, why can they not get down to the City of London, which is just round the corner, and clean out the crooks there? If there is a problem with personnel, why not transfer a few from one force to the other?

Mr. Hogg: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman cannot take serious matters seriously.

Mr. Jessel: Can more accountants and lawyers be recruited, as I ask in question No. 47?

Mr. Speaker: That is a bit unfair.

Mr. Hogg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister give an assurance on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that sufficient extra officers will be seconded to the City and the commercial fraud department to ensure, not only that existing fraud investigations can continue apace, but that there will be sufficient officers to bring to trial quickly those who may be guilty of frauds in connection with the affairs of Guinness plc?

Mr. Hogg: There is no evidence at the moment that the relevant police squads are undermanned.

Civil Defence

Mr. Stevens: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department's planning assumptions for civil protection allow for enemy use of chemical weapons against United Kingdom military bases and other targets.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Yes, such use cannot entirely be ruled out.

Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the acceptance of the fact that targets may be attacked by a chemical weapon, has he any plans to arrange for the issue of advice to the public?

Mr. Hogg: I endeavour to be as helpful to my hon. Friend and to the House as possible. We are reviewing these matters to see what additional precautions are required.

Crime Statistics

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department expects to publish the crime figures for 1986.

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from chief constables on the change in the number of burglaries and thefts in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available compared with the totals in the 12 months ended March 1979; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: The main crime figures for the first three quarters of 1986 have already been published. Those for the fourth quarter should be published in March These include the number of burglaries and thefts recorded by police forces. Sixty-six per cent. more burglaries and 40 per cent. more thefts were recorded in the 12 months ending in September 1986 than in the 12 months before March 1979.

Mr. Mikardo: Does the Minister not find it strange that the effects of the policies of his Government, who claim to


be better at law and order than anyone else, are first, an ever-increasing rise in crime, and secondly, a pathetically poor performance in clear-up rate?

Mr. Hurd: Certainly I would not claim that we have solved the crime problem. We can say that we have strengthened the police. There are 10,000 more police officers than there were. We have improved their equipment and their co-operation with the community, as the 18,000 neighbourhood watch schemes show. We have given them necessary powers over terrorism. All this would be undermined and perhaps destroyed if the police forces were subject to what, according to The Times, is the original and authentic wording of Labour party proposals and put under the supervision of local councils.

Mr. Lofthouse: The Home Secretary will have heard his hon. Friend the Minister of State, in answer to an earlier question today, talk about the improvement in policemen's pay under this Government. Will the Home Secretary, as the person responsible for law and order and crime in Britain, tell the House why he believes that there has been an increase in the crime rate and a decrease in the detection rate during the lifetime of this Government?

Mr. Hurd: Because during the lifetime of this Government, as during the lifetime of the previous Government, the rate of recorded crime in Britain has continued to rise steadily. As regards the crimes which are perhaps of most concern to people—offences of violence against the person—although the figures have continued to rise, they have risen at half the rate at which they rose during the lifetime of the Labour Government.

Mr. Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Metropolitan police and police forces generally have a very good and improving clear-up rate for serious crime? Does he further agree that the great problem is with the 95 per cent. of property crime, which is now being addressed by crime prevention work? Does he agree that that is at last beginning to prove successful?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree. I have given the figure for the neighbourhood watch schemes, 18,000, which is a record. I would point out — my hon. Freind already knows this — that, in relation to burglaries, which the second question covered, one quarter of burglaries in Britain do not involve forced entry. Either a widow or a door has been left unsecured. That shows the enormous scope for crime prevention, and we are concentrating on it.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Home Secretary agree that this Government have made major cuts in real crime prevention work, such as work to improve housing which is down by two thirds, and on work to light our streets better, where rate support grant to local authorities has been cut? Are not those the main reasons why crime has increased in this country?

Mr. Hurd: One thing on which I would have thought everyone who studies the Audit Commission report would agree is that simply putting money into traditional local authority schemes is not the right way in which to achieve greater security. The hon. Gentleman is right, not in saying that there should be more local government spending, but in saying that we should target our spending more effectively on street lighting, caretakers on housing estates and on the proper design of housing. That is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Dorrell: Is it not essential, if we are to maintain the efficiency of the police, that chief constables maintain full responsibility for the operational control of men under their command? Is it not impossible to square that necessity with any concept of democratic supervision? Does my right hon. Friend agree with the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the Labour party must choose between an effective police force and its commitment to democratic supervision?

Mr. Hurd: There has obviously been some embarrassed shuffling in the Labour party about the wording of its proposals on this because of the difficulty to which my hon. Friend draws attention. The Times did a useful job of exposing that on its front page yesterday. I recommend the text that was published to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Home Secretary aware how delighted we are that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) totally agrees with the Labour party that there should be no control over police operations by local police authorities and that there should be no supervision of the police by local police authorities? Neither is Labour party policy, and we repudiate both. That being so, will the right hon. Gentleman now explain why crime has risen to record levels under the Conservative Government, when the Prime Minister personally promised that she would reduce it? Is it that the Prime Minister made that promise knowing that she could not keep it, or has she tried to keep it and failed?

Mr. Hurd: Our commitment was to give priority to law and order. The facts and figures that I have given show that we have abundantly done that.

Mr. Kaufman: But failed.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is dodging the question. As I understand it, the story in The Times bears it out. The Labour party believes that, while operational matters, as it fails to define them, should continue to be under the control of the police, police priorities should be under the supervision of local authorities.

Mr. Kaufman: No.

Mr. Hurd: Well, there are different versions and the right hon. Gentleman is shuffling between them, but any one of them would be deeply damaging to the police.

Prisons

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the control of costs and management of construction of new prisons and procurement of supplies and stores for them.

Mr. Hurd: The design and construction of new prisons is undertaken by the Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment, which is responsible, in consultation with the Home Office for cost control and management of construction programmes. The supply of equipment and stores for new prisons is undertaken in accordance with normal Government procurement arrangements. In the Home Office we have recently reviewed those arrangements to ensure that we receive proper value for money.

Mr. Latham: In view of the gross waste of public money which has taken place at the new Stocken prison in my


constituency, of which my right hon. Friend is aware, will he consider introducing an experienced business man from the private sector to supervise the building, design and furnishing of new prisons?

Mr. Hurd: The Stocken prison is an illustration of the dangers of stop-go. The prison was designed in the early 1970s and scrapped, as a result of the Labour Government's cuts, in 1976. It had to be brought forward urgently when we took office, so the old design, which is below standard, was taken off the shelf and put into effect. The thrust of my hon. Friend's question is right. I expect he knows that the PSA is putting more resources into site supervision, which is, I believe, the key to most of this, and it is increasingly using outside private enterprise consultants to do that. My hon. Friend will know that the Environment Select Committee is looking into PSA operations.

Mr. Heffer: Although nobody would disagree with the view that construction must be cost-effective, is it not clear that the programme of building new prisons and improving existing ones must be speeded up because the problem of prison overcrowding, which affects prisoners and those who look after them, has reached crisis proportions? Is it not necessary for the Government to take speedy action to deal with this growing crisis?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. That is why we are pressing ahead with the programme to build 16 more new prisons and refurbishing a large number of traditional prisons. He is perfectly correct. However, our task would he much easier if this matter had not been so shamefully neglected by our predecessors.

Civil Defence College

Mr. Hind: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider changing the name of the Civil Defence College, Easingwold to the Civil Protection College.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There are no present plans to change the name of the Civil Defence College.

Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that the correct approach to emergency planning is to pursue a broad all-hazards policy — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] — which will also embrace peacetime emergencies? Can my right hon. Friend give us an undertaking that future courses at the college will reflect that attitude?

Mr. Hogg: Indeed, the public are firmly committed to an all-hazards approach. The Government will not forgive those local authorities, notably Labour-controlled authorities, which refuse to discharge their statutory obligations.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Ernie Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the President of the Commission of the European Communities. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Prime Minister take into account the views of the massive lobby yesterday against Sizewell B? Will she take note of the fact that the Layfield report. which is two years out of date, did not consider the massive disaster at Chernobyl?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware. the whole report is now before the House. He is also aware that it will be debated in the House before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy makes his decision.

Mr. Thornton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the sentences that were passed in the Ealing vicarage case not only fall short of the guidelines laid down by the Lord Chief Justice, but also very much fly in the face of the way in which the public show their revulsion of such crimes? Will my right hon. Friend and her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary examine the present Criminal Justice Bill and consider how that can be strengthened to give effect to Lord Lane's proposals?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House shares my hon. Friend's deep concern about the dreadful crime of rape. As he knows, it is the Government's task to ensure that sufficient maximum sentences are available for the courts to deal with these matters. I think my hon. Friend is also aware that clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill before the House allows the Attorney-General to seek leave to refer to the Court of Appeal cases which seem to him to raise issues of public importance. This is intended to enable proper sentencing standards to be maintained. A similar clause has been before Parliament before, but that was lost in another place, greatly to our regret. We undertook to bring a similar clause hack before the House. That can now be found in the Criminal Justice Bill and it will allow the House the opportunity to secure sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Kinnock: I agree very broadly with the Prime Minister's comments about the sentences. I simply offer the view that, while it is necessary for judges to remain detached in the name of the law, sometimes they show an insenstitivity to the suffering of victims which is difficult to comprehend.
Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Democratic Members of the United States House of Representatives who unanimously condemned the United States nuclear test in the Nevada desert on Tuesday? Will she convey to President Reagan the regret and opposition felt by many in this country to the United States making that test? In the course of doing that, will she invite the Soviet Union to extend its 18-month moratorium on testing? Will she communicate with General Secretary Gorbachev and urge him not to make a precipitate response by resuming testing?

The Prime Minister: First, with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the matter of rape and sentences for it, I must point out that in January 1985, in the debates on what is now the Prosecution of Offences Act, both the Opposition and the alliance voted solidly to oppose our proposal to enable lenient sentences to be referred to the Court of Appeal by the Attorney-General. I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman says that this time they will support clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill. [Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not like facts. He finds them embarrasing.
With regard to the United States underground nuclear testing, I point out that the United States, like the United Kingdom, sees substantial difficulties over verification before we can get a full, comprehensive test ban treaty. I understand that the arrangement agreed at Reykjavik was for a step-by-step approach to nuclear testing, and that should go by way of ratifying the threshold test ban treaty and the treaty on peaceful nuclear explosions.

Mr. Kinnock: May I first say — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The right hon. Lady will want to reflect on the use to which she put the previous question, which I thought was a matter of common view among us. Notwithstanding her efforts to make party points out of what is —[Interruption.] The fact remains that the clause in the Prosecution Offences Act would not have had the bearing that I presume the right hon. Lady would want it to have on this kind of case.
May I say to the Prime Minister [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] As the test undertaken on Tuesday was obviously outside the laboratory, has the right hon. Lady sought assurances from President Reagan that it was not connected with the star wars project, and therefore not in breach of the strict interpretation of the ABM treaty, which once again last week was wisely and strongly endorsed by the Foreign Secretary?

The Prime Minister: I have said that the essential item in the comprehensive test ban treaty is verification. I have part of the ABM treaty in front of me. Interpretation of it must be a matter for the parties who signed it. It is they who are best at interpreting it.

Mr. Gale: Will my right hon. Friend consider that the people of Scotland have enjoyed for the past 10 years responsible changes in the licensing laws not enjoyed by people of England and Wales? Will she acknowledge that the recent filibuster of a private Member's Bill to change the law in England and Wales did not represent the will of the House? Could she ask her business managers to allow a little more time to allow this modest Bill to go through the House?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government do not give time for private Members' Bills, and we would be in great difficulty if we were to break that rule and give it to one. We shall be interested in the views that the House takes on that matter.

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cartwright: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that senior figures in the United States Administration are pressing for an early decision to deploy part of the star wars system? As the Prime Minister has rightly and frequently endorsed the original, narrow definition of the ABM treaty, will she take every possible action to dissuade President Reagan from listening to the advice from those who seem determined to wreck the ABM treaty and kill the chance of an early summit meeting?

The Prime Minister: There is no reason to think that any decisions on deployment of SDI are imminent, and it is perfectly legitimate., I understand, under the treaty to go ahead with SDI research while arms reductions are

negotiated. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that new systems are dealt with under agreed statement D attached to the treaty and signed by both sides.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week a visiting Soviet delegation announced concessions that the Soviets are prepared to make on human rights, and they are most welcome? Does she agree that one of the main reasons for the concessions is that the West is insisting on remaining strong in defence and developing the strategic defence initiative?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I think that the fact that the West is staying absolutely strong in defence is bringing about many changes in the approach of the Soviet Union. Also, the Soviet Union has considerable internal difficulties which may be leading it to make some changes in areas such as human rights, where, otherwise, we have not got very far in previous years.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: As the Prime Minister is on record as having said that she would be prepared to press the nuclear button, does she not think that it would have been more honest if, in the Government film to be circulated to our schools, she had appeared personally and repeated that? Does she not agree that millions of our people are deeply angry about the use of taxpayers' money to brainwash our schoolchildren with blatant party political propaganda?

The Prime Minister: Point No. 1: a nuclear deterrent that has been the best peace—

Mr. Hamilton: Press the button—

The Prime Minister: I am coming to that.
A nuclear deterrent that has been the best peace policy of this century would not be a deterrent unless those in charge were prepared to press that button. It would not have been a deterrent in any previous Government who had it either. The hon. Gentleman wants to abandon the nuclear deterrent. We will not do that. Secondly, that film is not a party political film. It is a film on Government information—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: —about how the Government discharge their duty to secure the defence of the realm. The only people who will say that it is party political are those who wish not to have any duty to defend the realm, such as Opposition Members.

Mr. Amess: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: When the Prime Minister visits Moscow next month and meets Mr. Gorbachev, will she stand firm in her resolve to achieve peace through multilateral, rather than unilateral, disarmament? Will she also take the opportunity to point out to Mr. Gorbachev that the Soviet Union's record on individual human rights leaves much to be desired?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I shall be discussing with Mr. Gorbachev the prospects for arms reductions. Unilateral disarmament, which is the policy of the Labour party, would remove any incentive for the Russians to negotiate as well as expose this country's security to grave risks.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament would expose Britain to grave risks and abolish the nuclear deterrent, which has been the best peace policy for 40 years.
With regard to my hon. Friend's other comments, I shall, as in past discussions, have human rights issues very much in mind and raise them with the Soviet Government.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Lady aware, in the light of Monday's debate on the Royal Navy, in which hon. Members from both sides condemned the disappearance of the merchant fleet, that the intention of the Secretary of State for Transport to increase light dues on merchant vessels and fishing boats is regarded with the gravest concern and may well be the death knell for what remains of the Merchant Navy? Does she agree that that is a real danger to national security?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement on this matter some weeks ago because he was concerned about having sufficient officers and men in the merchant marine. He therefore made three proposals which will help to secure that end. I may also point out to the right hon. Gentleman, because we are often asked to reintroduce the 100 per cent. first-year capital allowances, that in fact the flagging out of the Merchant Marine came while we had those allowances.

Mr. Nelson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nelson: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports today that the Labour party has joined the Liberal party and the SDP — [Interruption.] — and re-affirmed its intention of making large numbers of home buyers pay much more for their mortgages? Is this not yet further evidence — [Interruption.] —that only the Conservative party and the Conservative Government will protect the interests of home buyers?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The Conservative party and Government are now the only people who do not want to limit in any way the present system of mortgage interest tax relief for home buyers.

Mr. Boyes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave gave some moments ago.

Mr. Boyes: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that as a result of the raid on BBC Scotland the special branch now has in its possession a BBC memo that says the programmes made by Duncan Campbell would not damage the national interest and that there was no possibility of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act? Will the Prime Minister further acknowledge that, after the meetings between Duncan Campbell and the Attorney General, his attention was drawn to the fact that Duncan Campbell did not in any way want to damage the national interest, as the Attorney General requested? Consequently, Duncan Campbell acted in a responsible manner, and it is the Government who have acted irresponsibly.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the police properly obtained the search warrant from the

courts, which decided that it should issue it. With regard to any material taken away by the police, its use and decisions on any prosecutions are matters for the prosecuting authorities, not for the Government.

Mr. Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise directly out of questions?

Mr. Dewar: Yes. It arises out of the last exchange between the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). You will be aware that on Tuesday there was a debate — [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not begun to hear the point of order.

Mr. Dewar: You will recall that there was a debate on Tuesday into the matter of the warrant which was issued for the search of the BBC premises in Glasgow. There emerged in that debate a very sharp difference of opinion between the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the involvement of the Law Officers and the duty they had in respect of the issue of that warrant.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what is being said.

Mr. Dewar: This clash and difference of view is still unresolved and was very evident during the course of those exchanges. The Lord Advocate yesterday in another place made a statement which made it clear that, in his view, the Secretary of State for Scotland was wrong in his opinions, and confirmed the views expressed by the Lord Advocate. It seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory situation that matters of fundamental importance and of great public concern should have been ventilated in another place and should have arisen directly out of a debate in this House when Members of this House have no opportunity of probing or examining the principal actors in that dispute. As there is no sign of a statement from Ministers, may we have your help and advice on how we can get at these important issues?

Mr. Speaker: What is said from the Front Bench, or, indeed, in another place, is not a matter for me, so I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is fair to point out that my noble Friend the Lord Advocate in another place, when expressly asked, confirmed that in his view there was no disparity between what he said and what I or my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland had said.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the Secretary of State had volunteered a comment, I must allow a response.

Mr. Dewar: The Lord Advocate perhaps did not read the debate as carefully as did hon. Members. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for Scotland—I use this as just a representative quote — said:
the width of any warrant sought is a matter not for the police or for the Lord Advocate but for the courts.
Clearly, throughout his speech, he was trying to imply that there was no ministerial involvement, while the Solicitor-General for Scotland said that the Lord Advocate was


there to ensure that … the warrant … does not go beyond what is required."— [Official Report, 3 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 852–57.]
It is clear from that that there is a complete incompatibility of view as to the duty of the Law Officers between the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General. If — I make this point because it is important—the Solicitor-General is correct and there was a direct ministerial responsibility in the hands of the Law Officers, the way in which that warrant was drafted, and the very different way in which it was drafted in Scotland as against England, lies at the heart of the public controversy and alarm, and the House should, in the form of a statement from the relevant Ministers, have a chance to debate it.

Mr. Speaker: None of that is a matter for me, nor was the question addressed to me.

Sir William Clark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It cannot be further to that point of order. The point of order was put to me and I was prepared to answer it, but in my place the Secretary of State for Scotland volunteered a comment. I allowed a response. There can be nothing further to that point of order.

Sir William Clark: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was clearly under the impression that you prefaced your remarks to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Carscadden (Mr. Dewar) by asking whether his point of order arose out of questions and he said that it did. As it is quite obvious that it did not arise out of questions, was that not an abuse of the so-called point of order? Indeed, some of us on the Back Benches would never get away with that, so why did the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Speaker: I think that it did arise out of the previous question. If I ask an hon. Member whether his point of order arises directly out of questions and he says that it does, in honour I accept that, and I believe that that point of order did so arise.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the suggestion that you permitted an abuse a direct criticism of the Chair?

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that your ruling means that when you ask an hon. Member whether his point of order arises out of questions, provided that it arises out of questions that day, last week or some other Question Time, it becomes in order? Or does that apply only to the Front Benches?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows the rule perfectly well.

Mr. Nicholls: I do not.

Mr. Speaker: Let me spell it out clearly to the House. I take points of order immedately after questions if they arise as a result of questions. Otherwise, I take them after any applications under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Dickens: On a new point of order arising out of questions, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that earlier we had many questions about the crime figures of the nation. You may not have heard, but I ought to tell you that this morning at the Old Bailey Judge Miskin gave—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman kindly look at me please? May I make one other comment which I think the whole House should have reaffirmed? Points of order must be matters on which I can rule. With all charity to the hon. Gentleman, I am not responsible by any stretch of the imagination for what any judge at the Old Bailey may say.

Mr. Dickens: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It must be a point of order for me.

Mr. Dickens: I have never sought to go against your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, the point that I am putting to you for your ruling is as follows. How can this House pass legislation about sentencing when our judges live in a different world?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but the hon. Gentleman has parliamentary options open to him.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does this arise out of Questions?

Mr. Cohen: Yes. You will have heard the Prime Minister speak about the defence policy of the Labour party as unilateral disarmament. It is not that: it is unilateral nuclear disarmament. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are sensitive about the wording that can be used in the House. If the Prime Minister or any Conservative Member uses that term again, would it be in order to call them liars?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the word liar is unparliamentary. Unilateral disarmament or unilateral nuclear disarment are not unparliamentary terms.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
Remaining stages of the Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill.
Motions relating to the Dockyard Services (Devonport) (Designation and Appointed Day) Order and the Dockyard Services (Rosyth) (Designation and Appointed Day) Order.
TUESDAY 10 FEBRUARY — Opposition Day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Housing Crisis and the Rise in Homelessness".
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order.
WEDNESDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Timetable motion on the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill. Remaining stages of the Petroleum Bill.
Motions on Scottish housing grant and revenue orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 12 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on a Government motion on the Government's employment and training initiatives, European Community document No. 10119/86 on an action programme for employment growth will be relevant to the debate.
FRIDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 16 FEBRUARY — Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill (Lords).
It is expected that the Chairman of Ways and Means will name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

Debate on Thursday 12 February: Relevant European Document, 10119/86, "Action programme on employment growth"; Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee, HC 22-ii (1986–87), para 3.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
The Government's decision to put a guillotine on the Abolition of Domestic Rates, etc. (Scotland) Bill is a disgrace. Every part of the legislative process of this Bill has been marked by the Government's disregard for the proper process of informed debate. This Bill is unfair and completely unwanted by the people of Scotland. Will the Government reconsider their decision and at least allow further time for the Scottish people to have their case put fully in the House?
On a further point about Scotland, is the Leader of the House aware that, in the matter of the decision to close the Caterpillar tractor plant at Uddingston, with a loss of over 1,200 jobs, the Secretary of State for Scotland has so far made several statements outside the House voicing his amazement and disappointment but has made no statement to the House since the last Scottish Question Time? Bearing in mind the enthusiastic and optimistic references to Caterpillar that the Secretary of State made in his new year message, does the Leader of the House not think it high time that his right hon. Friend came to the

House to make a statement, preferably in a debate—in any case, very quickly — before he becomes a mere public mourner for private crimes committed by the Caterpillar company?
Yesterday, the Lord Advocate — this matter has already been referred to in the House today—made a statement in the other place about the raid that the special branch carried out on the BBC in Scotland. I understand that, in response to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Solicitor-General for Scotland said that he was willing to make a statement about the matter in the House of Commons. In view of that, and in view of the inconsistency between what the Secretary of State for Scotland told the House on Tuesday and what the Lord Advocate told the other place yesterday, does the Leader of the House agree that the Solicitor-General for Scotland's offer to make a statement here should be taken up immediately, and, at the very latest at the beginning of next week?
Has the Leader of the House seen the article in today's edition of The Guardian that suggests that the Zircon details were published in an industrial newsletter called "Interspace" in 1984? Will he ask the Home Secretary to investigate this report and get him to make a statement to the House next week? It is clear that such information could affect the context of the Government's present actions under the Official Secrets Act.
Once again, I ask the Leader of the House to give urgent consideration to having a debate on the great and growing crisis of the decline in Britain's Merchant Navy. I realise that the issue was referred to in the debates on the Navy earlier this week, particularly in excellent speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann). In the past seven years, the fleet has shrunk by over 50 per cent. to fewer than 500 vessels. Surely, as I have said before, that must be a matter of great national interest arid worthy of a debate in Government time. I urge the Leader of the House to make that time available.
Finally, in view of the confidence shown in market forces that led to the sale of Westland plc to Sikorsky a year ago, recent news of the company's financial crisis must come as a severe disappointment to the Government, as indeed it does to the Opposition and to Westland's workers. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government will bail out the company? Will he arrange for a statement to be made on the issue by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry early next week?

Mr. Biffen: I shall take up the six points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Already, up to 86 hours have been devoted to the Abolition of Domestic Rates, etc. (Scotland) Bill. So far, we have reached only clause 17 of a Bill that contains 34 clauses and six schedules. That is a reasonable background against which to understand the Government's proposals. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving us a trailer of the arguments that will be used by the Opposition in that item of business on Wednesday.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, has made clear his opposition to the closure of the Caterpillar factory. I shall draw his attention to the request that a statement be made on this topic.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to matters that were the subject of exchanges earlier today about remarks by the Lord Advocate in another place. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland has never committed himself to making a statement, but I shall look into the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. I make this observation in the context that, in any case, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will answer questions on Wednesday.
I assure the Leader of the Opposition that The Guardian newspaper is not my early morning reading. It has that engaging—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Sun."] I rightly have a different set of priorities, and I accept the guidance proffered by the right hon. Gentleman. That apart, I shall of course refer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the point that he raised.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Merchant Navy featured in powerful contributions by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), and I do not think that I can offer the early prospect of a further debate on the Merchant Navy, since it was debated only a few days ago. [Interruption.] I just wonder how many debates on the Merchant Navy the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) cheerfully fielded during his days in office. I suspect that he encountered many more local difficulties than I ever have to encounter.
As to Westland, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the point that the right hon. Gentleman raised.

Sir George Young: In view of the widespread public debate about the sentences following the crimes committed at the Ealing vicarage, which is in my constituency, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could find time for a general debate on sentencing policy, in particular on the place of rape in the general tariff of sentences that is apparently available at the moment?

Mr. Biffen: The passage of the Criminal Justice Bill might conceivably enable my hon. Friend to make the speech that he has in mind. I realise that this recent event has caught the full mind and the full distaste of the public at large, and also that of this House. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's request about the possibility of a debate on sentencing policy, but I have to say that there can be no early prospect of such a debate in Government time.

Mr. David Alton: In view of the growing and widespread public concern about the whereabouts of Mr. Terry Waite, will the Leader of the House find out whether there is anything useful that the Government can tell the House next week about his whereabouts and his present condition? Also, does he agree that the film "Keeping the Peace" ought to be shown in the precincts some time next week? Before films of this kind are made, does he not think that it would be useful if discussions were held with the other parties to ensure that a proper balance is maintained between propaganda and public information?

Mr. Biffen: Of course I shall refer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs the point that the hon. Gentleman

has made about Mr. Waite. As to his second point, he raises—perhaps deliberately and in a highly contentious fashion—a protest about what I believe is an estimable film, although I have not yet seen it.

Sir John Page: In view of the calm sunshine in which the Government are at present basking, will the Leader of the House be kind enough to try to find time for a very short debate on early-day motion 367 about the floodlighting of the statute of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square?
[That this House would welcome the permanent floodlighting of the statue of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square as a reminder of his special place in British history and in order to create a new night-time landmark in London; and calls upon the Secretary of State for the Environment to make the necessary arrangements forthwith.]
That suggestion was put to me by one of the police officers in the House, remembering how very economical and effective is the lighting of the statue of George V in Abingdon place.

Mr. Biffen: If I am basking in political sunshine, there must be some redress under misleading merchandise marks. As to my hon. Friend's specific point about the statue of Sir Winston Churchill, I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I am sure that it will have widespread support.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Leader of the House take into consideration the widespread concern, particularly of south Yorkshire Members of Parliament, about the differences of opinion between Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate and the Secretary of State for the Environment regarding the viability of the manning of the south Yorkshire fire services, which is leading to inadequate fire cover for the people of south Yorkshire?

Mr. Biffen: I can best help the hon. Gentleman by referring that point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole House will welcome the opportunity that is presented by next Tuesday's debate on the order to continue the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984? It must be particularly welcome to the Leader of the Opposition, with his new-found interest in and commitment to national security. It gives him the opportunity of whipping his right hon. and hon. Friends to support the government on this Bill. Has the right hon. Gentleman given any indication yet of what the policy of the Labour party will be on Tuesday?

Mr. Biffen: No, but I think that my hon. Friend should try to learn to be an optimist and to hope that the Labour party will be with us in the Lobby supporting their measure.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that people such as haemophiliacs who have AIDS as a result of blood transfusions from the National Health Service could eventually be considered victims of manslaughter by the NHS and could certainly be considered to be victims of medical accidents? Could we therefore have a debate on the case for paying them no-fault compensation?

Mr. Biffen: I see no prospect of time being available for a debate—on an admittedly important topic—over the next few weeks. but the right hon. Gentleman might try to use his skill and authority in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: In considering the Leader of the Opposition's synthetic outrage about the timetabling of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Labour party has made if perfectly clear in Committee that it is committed to retaining the rating system, wants regular revaluations and wishes to extend rating to cover agricultural land and buildings? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind the strictures of the Glasgow Herald, which denounced the Opposition's performance on the basis that it is weak, flabby, ineffective and confused?

Mr. Biffen: I hope that the debate on Wednesday on timetable provisions will give the Labour party an opportunity to demonstrate that it will continue to retain these anachronistic forms of taxation, including the rating of agricultural land. I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's other point.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision to timetable the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, which is probably the most controversial, important and fundamental Bill of a Scottish character that has come before the House for many years? It deserves our consideration. There is no reason to rush the Bill through, because there is no business waiting to go into the Scottish Standing Committee. Therefore, there is no rush of other business for Scottish Members.

Mr. Biffen: I do not expect to become a folk hero for timetabling the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, but neither do I expect to be a victim of deeply held abuse and hatred from those who nominally have to oppose the measure.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Regarding the draft Police (Northern Ireland) Order, is my right hon. Friend aware that the present take-it-or-leave-it procedure, whereby we debate this type of order, causes considerable difficulties for hon. Members? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although that order applies to a Northern Ireland matter that has been debated in the United Kingdom, it departs from that matter in significant ways. Under the present procedure, there is no way in which those hon. Members who wish the order to go through as a whole can debate or amend particular parts of the order that are different in Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend put his inventive mind to work to see whether various resolutions can be put forward so that the House can discuss, and if necessary vote on, those matters that are essentially different from those that have been debated already in the case of England and Wales?

Mr. Biffen: There are sound reasons why the conventions have developed in the way that they have. None the less, my hon. Friend has made a legitimate point. Perhaps we can consider it further through the usual channels.

Mr. James Lamond: I assume that the Prime Minister will be making a statement following her visit to the Soviet Union, but has the Leader of the House noticed that, more than seven weeks ahead of that visit, hon. Members are telling the right hon. Lady

of matters that they would like her to raise while she is there? Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a statement before her visit to the Soviet Union, so that she can outline the matters with which she intends to deal, answer questions and take note of points that hon. Members might like her to raise?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: She is electioneering.

Mr. Biffen: It is perfectly natural that a lively interest should be shown on both sides of the House about the impending visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Russia. No doubt that interest will intensify, much to the discomfort of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Skinner: Fancy using the hustings in Moscow.

Mr. Biffen: Where would we be without the hon. Gentleman? I am not sure that there is a good case for the innovation sought by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Larnond), but I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to it.

Mr. Tom Sackville: In view of the widespread condemnation of the Soviet Union's failure to observe the Helsinki Accord, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the case of Anatoly Koryagin, a distinguished psychiatrist, who was imprisoned following his protests at the abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, who has been systematically tortured by starvation, cold and lack of medical facilities and who, contrary to announcements in the press last week, has still not been released? In fact, his wife and family have heard nothing from him and fear that he may be close to death.

Mr. Biffen: I think that my hon. Friend will realise why it would be a little hazardous for me to undertake to find Government time for such a debate, but I am sure that he will concede the opportunities that exist for an Adjournment debate on the subject.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I recognise that the Leader of the House has no ambition to be a folk hero in Scotland—an ambition that he will certainly not realise. But is there any reason why he should court the role of the pantomime demon king by introducing the absurd timetable motion on the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, in view of the fact that the Committee has sat for a mere five weeks and has already completed consideration of half the Bill — 17 clauses in 17 sittings? For what sort of productivity is the right hon. Gentleman looking? Why is he acting in a fashion that is close to unconstitutional?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes up for the mildness of his manner with the absurd exaggeration of his speech and charges. I have portrayed a very reasonable case. As the hon. Gentleman said, 86 hours have been devoted to the Bill and the Committee is only half way through the clauses. It is perfectly reasonable, therefore, to have measured progress hereafter with the assistance of a timetable.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the procedures arid privileges of the House, especially since the film which you, Mr. Speaker, said should not be shown in the House is apparently being shown with impunity the length arid breadth of the land, encouraged by the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition has apparently made no attempt


to stop the filming, despite his original statement that he believed that it was not in the national interest that the film should be shown. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an opportunity to review its position and that of the Opposition and the relationship between national security and your role, Mr. Speaker, and that of the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Biffen: I shall bear in mind the points so forcefully put by my hon. Friend. The House may prefer to await the report which will eventually be received from the Privileges Committee.

Mr. Bruce Milian: Reverting to the special branch raid on BBC Glasgow, is the Leader of the House aware that we have seen not only the statement by the Lord Advocate in the other place yesterday but the terms of the warrant which the Lord Advocate was involved in drawing up and which he approved? It is clear from the warrant that it was directed not just at the one Zircon film but at all six films in the series "The Secret Society". In those circumstances, the matter cannot possibly be allowed to rest, since Ministers deliberately obscured the terms of the warrant in the debate in the House on Thursday. Another statement must be made in the House on this important matter.

Mr. Biffen: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I am sorry that he uses language that implies deception by my right hon. Friends—[Interruption.]—and I am sorry that he chooses to repeat it from a sedentary position. I cannot add anything to the answer that I gave the leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Michael Latham: May I appeal yet again to my right hon. Friend's rural —indeed rustic—sense of benevelence to find out whether he can provide time for a debate on agriculture? Is he aware that the Common Market's decisions before Christmas have not been unanimously received with enthusiasm by the farming community? Is it not high time that we had a debate on those decisions?

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend. I shall bear his points very much in mind. I think that my hon. Friend understands that a great many agricultural affairs are now directed through the activities of the European Community and that gives us some opportunities from time to time. I shall, however, further consider my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Hugh Brown: Will the Leader of the House reconsider Wednesday's business on the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill? Is he aware that the Government got off to a bad start in Committee by moving an unprecedented and provocative sittings motion, the like of which I have never seen before? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a narrow distinction may be drawn on the part of many Scottish Members between filibustering and natural verbosity?

Mr. Biffen: I notice the delicate distinction which the hon. Gentleman throws out as a lifeline for Wednesday's debate.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: When may we have a debate on Lord Chief Justice Lane's guidelines on sentencing in rape cases? Does my right hon. Friend accept

that outrage is felt throughout the country at the fact that the average sentence for rape is only three and a half years and that only 20 months are served? May we have an
opportunity to provide for stiffer sentences—a minimum of 25 years with no parole and a right of appeal against the absurdly lenient sentences which are being imposed, even by Mr. Justice Leonard in the Ealing vicarage case?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) raised this point and I gave as measured a reply as I could. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that answer as having anticipated his question.

Mr. David Clelland: I draw the attenion of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 524 on Council Aid.
[That this House congratulates the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead Council and War on Want on the successful launch of Council aid; recognises the potential of this latest initiative to relieve poverty and suffering in the Third World; and calls upon local authorities throughout the United Kingdom to play their full part, collectively and individually, to support Council Aid during 1987.]
The motion has the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman join us in congratulating Gateshead metropolitan borough council and War on Want on their efforts to encourage local authorities to raise funds for the Third World during 1987? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early debate on the Third World's continuing problems, which have not gone away because the television cameras were withdrawn?

Mr. Biffen: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments. It is certainly powerfully true that the problems remain long after the passing fashion of the media. I shall look at the early-day motion and ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the relevant Minister.

Mr. Richard Holt: I was rather disappointed by my right hon. Friend's answer to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). Instead of saying that there would not be a debate on the narrow subject which was raised, my right hon. Friend should urge an early debate on the whole subject of AIDS so that the House has the opportunity to give a lead to the country on the dangerous nature of this disease and its effects and to clear up much of the ignorance and superstition that exists.

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. I should have thought that the House had an extremely good, comprehensive and instructive debate just before Christmas. In some sense, we have moved on to the more specific issues mentioned by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and I shall not commend the expectation of Government time for another general debate.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Leader of the House pay special attention to the request by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the Caterpillar tractor company? Will he bear in mind that that company acted ruthlessly and viciously from square one? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a statement is made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, because he was involved in discussions with the American company before and after it was closed? The right hon.
and learned Gentleman did not have the courtesy to come to the House and declare himself. Will the Leader of the House make it clear that the Secretary of State for Scotland must tell us where he stands on this issue? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman align himself with the Opposition and the workers at the Caterpillar factory?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made his position very clear. I hope that he will he fully supported and have his position endorsed by Scottish Opposition Members. Of course, I shall add to the point that I shall be making because of the requests by the Leader of the Opposition by including the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there is immense concern in the country and the House following the incredible sentences imposed in the Ealing vicarage rape case? Bearing that in mind, would it not be wise, notwithstanding the fact that the Criminal Justice Bill is before the House, to have a full debate on sentencing and the judiciary so that the public can note where individual hon. Members stand?

Mr. Biffen: I note the interest evinced by my hon. Friend in two major topics. None the less, I am obliged to let my original answer stand. I shall certainly take note of my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Jim Craigen: Will the right lion. Gentleman explain why there is such unwarranted haste in cutting the parliamentary time available to debate the poll tax legislation in Scotland, which will not do away with revaluation for the non-domestic sector? If the poll tax is such a good idea, why was not a Bill introduced in the current session to institute such a tax in England and Wales?

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful for the felicitous concern that the hon. Gentleman shows for ratepayers in England and Wales. However, for the moment we should confine ourselves to the reality which is that there is a Bill for Scotland. I take note of the argument that will be deployed on Wednesday.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend will be aware of page 154 of "Erskine May", which states—

Mr. Biffen: indicated dissent.

Mr. Marlow: Well, can I remind my right hon. Friend that it says that any act which has the effect of bringing the House into ridicule is a contempt of the House? My right hon. Friend will be aware —[Laughter.] Shall I start again'? I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). My hon. Friend will be aware of Mr. Speaker's ruling and of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said that the Zircon affair is a matter of grave national security. He will also be aware of the fact that Front Bench spokesmen of the Labour party have been spraying the wretched film around Scotland with gay and uncontrolled abandon. Does my right hon. Friend feel that that brings the House into contempt? It certainly brings the Labour party into contempt. Would it be a proper issue to put before the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. Biffen: If I might show a supreme act of political cowardice, I would say that this behaviour of hon. Members is more a matter for Mr. Speaker than for myself.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Leader of the House recall that before Christmas I raised the issue of the need for a Government statement on the sale of coal hoard houses and the speculators who are involved? In view of the continuing controversy, as reported in several newspapers this week, could the Government make a statement on the matter now, as it appears that they have intervened?
I had to smile when the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the Prime Minister's trip to Moscow — I really could not help it—because I recall that in 1980 the Prime Minister said to British athletes "Don't go to Moscow". The Prime Minister's little bout of hypocrisy in gallivanting off to Moscow could only be improved by inviting Seb Coe and Steve Ovett to accompany her on the plane, so that they can show her the way around.

Mr. Biffen: I shall of course draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to practically every suggestion that comes from the hon. Gentleman, including that one. I shall consider the first point that he raised and see whether a ministerial answer can be given.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and other hon. Members, and ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision not to hold an early debate on sentencing policy and on the wider issues relating to rape trials, bearing in mind the appallingly low sentences which were passed in the Ealing vicarage rape case, the fact that the police, who worked for 10 days arid nights to bring those culprits to book, must feel let down, and the huge disturbance that it has created in the whole community of Ealing and beyond?
Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision and allow a debate to enable hon. Members to consider the role of the judiciary in such matters, and not least the fact that the family in this case, like those in other cases, feels that the woman's point of view has not been properly understood by a male judge and that a male judge should be supported, or replaced, by a female judge in future rape trials?

Mr. Biffen: I gave a measured but, I thought, none the less reasonable reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) which took a realistic view of the demands made upon the time of the House. Of course, I take account of the point made by my hon. Friend, and by other hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, I should make it quite clear that the substantive answer is the one that I gave to the first question that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton.

Mr. Speaker: I call the other Member for Leicester—[Laughter] These things happen to us all. I am so sorry. Mr. Janner.

Mr. Greville Janner: Leaving on one side the unhappy mistakes of democracy in the east of the city of Leicester, the west of which I am pleased to represent, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will be good enough to inquire of the Prime Minister why, on 7 November 1986, when she promised an urgent reply to my letter about the whereabouts and the nature of the 17


alleged war criminals in this country, she still has not replied? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on that subject, perhaps redefining the word "urgency", and, at the same time, will she refer to the previously secret documents that were revealed in the excellent Scottish television programme that was repeated on Channel 4 last night, which appeared to support the allegation that Britain has become a safe haven for some Nazi war criminals, including Antanas Gecas, who is living in comfort in Edinburgh and who, on television last night admitted to war crimes?

Mr. Biffen: As I have said repeatedly to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I shall not enter into the merits of his proposition but shall inquire why there have been difficulties in providing an answer for him.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I draw one other matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend, which might yet make him change his mind about a debate on sentencing policy? Can he confirm that, even under the welcome provision in clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill, those who receive grossly over-lenient sentences cannot be put in jeopardy of facing a correct sentence? If the prosecution, the defence and the country have a proper interest in ensuring that the right sentences are imposed, should we not grasp this nettle and give the prosecution a proper right of appeal and, if necessary, continue to put that proposition to their Lordships until they see the light of day?

Mr. Biffen: I am not clear from what my hon. Friend has said whether that is impossible with the passage of the current Criminal Justice Bill. Of course, I shall take into account what he has said about the desire in the House for these matters to be more widely debated, but I have already said that my initial reaction is not to allow a wider debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Reverting to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland cannot all be right. Why can we not go back to the old days when a personal statement would be made that would be acceptable to the House to clarify such difficult matters?
Reverting to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the Zircon affair, my Adjournment debate tomorrow at 2.30 pm is highly relevant to prosecution policy in relation to the Official Secrets Act. Will he suggest that the Solicitor-General, who is to reply to that debate, makes an authoritative statement on "Interspace" issues 46 and 61, which seem to give the impression that the Zircon project was known to those who subscribe to that magazine, such as the technical experts at GCHQ and doubtless also those in the Kremlin.
Finally, as one who has always received great personal courtesy from him, I should like to say that we very much regret the illness of the Attorney-General and hope that he will recover soon.

Mr. Biffen: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his kind words about my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's second point was a hint of some of the lines that he will take in the

Adjournment debate tomorrow, and I shall see that they are conveyed to the Minister who is to reply. On this first point, he will understand that I have tried to set out the position, as it is seen from the Treasury Bench, to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing concern about the complex but important question of extra-territoriality, and especially the efforts of the United States to enforce its law in the United Kingdom? Is he aware that in the House last week a Defence Minister said that a committee within the MOD is considering extra-territoriality, which takes it beyond the normal DTI responsibility. Therefore, is there not a case for an urgent debate on the whole question, rather than trying to confine it to interdepartmental conferences and actions, which are clearly having no effect.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises a matter of great, and I suspect growing, significance which now covers more than just one Government Department. I cannot offer the prospect of a debate in Government time in the near future, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to try his chances in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Tony Favell: While discussing the possibility of a debate on sentencing policy with the Home Secretary, will my right hon. Friend applaud both the decision of the Court of Appeal this week not to interfere with two five-year imprisonment sentences imposed on two young men for mugging a bus conductor, and the statement that those who indulge in mugging, especially of women at night, can expect long custodial sentences?

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. As far as possible, I have always made it my practice not to comment on court sentencing and I hope that he will understand if I prefer to keep to that policy today.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Does the Leader of the House not see that the Government have no mandate whatever to seek to impose on the people of Scotland a mediaeval poll tax which will discriminate against those on low incomes? Since he will have the embarrassing misfortune of moving the timetable motion of Wednesday, may I recommend that he looks at the Official Report of the Committee proceedings? That reveals the Government's extraordinarily lackadaisical attitude in Committee, which made it abundantly clear from the start that they want hours, not clauses, and that they are seeking to conceal the effects of the Bill on the Scottish people?

Mr. Biffen: If the Government wanted hours, I have the impression that they have some good allies on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Leader of the House aware of the overwhelming evidence to the Education Select Committee about the hardship being suffered by students on the present level of grants and its strong recommendation to the Government that they should increase grants for next year by more than the rate of inflation to alleviate that hardship? As the Government took absolutely no notice of that Select Committee report, presumably because they want to impose loans on students, could we at least have the opportunity to debate the report and the Government's response to it?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I must tell him that in the immediate future I see no possibility of Government time being available. However, I would be at one with him in stressing the importance of the issue.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the Leader of the House urge the Home Secretary to find time next week to make a statement on why he broke a commitment to the Lambeth police consultative group to publish the inquiry of the Police Complaints Authority into the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Mrs. Cherry Groce, not least since there are many open questions on the matter—for example the issue that the Home Secretary raised today, of how much Inspector Lovelock had been drinking the night before the shooting and why his request that he should not be assigned to that raid was not met? Will the Leader of the House also urge the Home Secretary to make a statement on the massive police raid on the Vauxhall tavern in my constituency on 24 January, which appears to have been unwarranted as no complaints have been received from any member of the public about alleged drunkenness in that public house?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes several serious allegations on which I cannot comment. I shall certainly raise with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the hon. Gentleman's request for consideration and a statement.

Private Rented Housing

The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): I should like to make a statement on private rented housing.
The Government are keen to encourage the provision of private housing for letting by a greater variety of agencies than at present and to increase freedom of choice for people wishing to rent their homes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I propose, therefore, to give local authorities an explicit statutory power to provide financial assistance to the private sector, including housing associations, in order to assist in the provision of rented housing using private sources of finance. We envisage that financial assistance might be particularly appropriate for the support of schemes involving assured tenancies. We propose to include the necessary provisions in the Local Government Bill this Session.
Local authorities will be able to use these powers to keep the rents of new housing developments by the private sector to levels which prospective tenants can be expected to afford. The purpose is also to give further encouragement to the introduction of private finance into the provision of such housing. I hope that authorities and others concerned will make the maximum use of these powers to encourage the development of schemes by responsible landlords for rented housing, particularly in areas where needs are greatest.
It is important, however, that such financial assistance should not be used simply to featherbed private sector provision by removing all risk from it and converting it into a concealed form of private sector lending to the public sector. The legislation we are proposing will, therefore, require that such financial assistance should be provided only with our consent. The Government expect local authorities to contain the cost of financial assistance within their existing programmes. We envisage that assistance would normally take the form of annual grants to bridge the gap between financing the costs of a development and the expected rental income, but other forms of assistance will be covered by our proposals.
There are four key matters on which we would normally wish to be satisfied before giving consent. First, the commercial risk of the development should rest substantially with the private sector and, in particular, the local authority's commitment shold not be an open-ended one to meet any differences that might arise between cost and income. Secondly, the level of financial assistance should not exceed in amount or value 30 per cent. of the overall cost of the scheme. Thirdly, the activity of managing and maintaining the houses concerned should be carried out by the private sector participant and not by the authority offering financial assistance. Fourthly, if local authority land is involved, the land should be sold freehold or on a lease of not less than 99 years.
Other factors that we might also wish to take into account in deciding to give or withhold consent are the overall costs of a scheme, the proposed tenure mix, whether tenants should have the right to buy, rights given to the authority to nominate tenants, the likely proportion of tenants receiving housing benefit and the proposed rent levels.
Some authorities are already planning to assist the provision of housing by private sector landlords using certain existing powers. It is important that such schemes should be developed in accordance with the criteria that I have indicated above. We are, therefore, proposing that the Local Government Bill should include a provision that, with effect from midnight tonight, local authorities shall not without our consent give financial assistance to or for the benefit of other persons, including registered housing associations, or enter into agreements to give such assistance in connection with the acquisition, construction, conversion, rehabilitation, improvement, maintenance or management of accommodation for letting or licensing, including hostels and lodging houses. We do not, however, propose that consent should be required with respect to assistance which is expressly required by an obligation imposed by an agreement made on or before today. Financial assistance given without our consent after today will be declared to be unlawful and transactions relating to financial assistance entered into without our consent after today will be declared void. Financial assistance for these proposals includes grants, loans, guarantees and indemnities, subscribing for share or loan capital, and the provision of benefits through the transfer of land or other property, the provision of goods, services or facilities, the carrying out of works, and the making of other payments.
We propose to initiate consultations immediately on the details of our proposals. I am placing in the Library copies of a document which sets out the proposals fully and which explains certain exemptions we propose to make from the requirements for consent. Copies of the document and of this statement are today being sent to all local authorities and to the local authority associations. Copies are also being sent to the Housing Corporation, the National Federation of Housing Associations and other interested parties. Meanwhile, I would advise any local authorities and others who are actively contemplating schemes to seek the guidance of my Department or the Welsh Office.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: We are grateful to the Minister for coming to the House to make a statement on this issue. It would have been wholly unacceptable to make such a statement in a written parliamentary reply.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The Minister would not do that.

Mr. Rooker: It has been done in the past and I am thanking the Minister for his courtesy in coming to the House to make this statement.
We accept that the Minister is consulting on this matter and, as the issue is not straightforward, I shall confine myself to a few questions. At the beginning of the statement the Minister said that the Government wish to encourage the provision of private rented housing and that some local authorities which he did not identify are already participating in or contemplating such schemes. There is one well-known scheme which I have visited in Sheffield. Has the Minister's decision to make the statement today and to give the proposals effect from midnight tonight anything to do with the proposals of Sheffield in conjunction with the United Kingdom

Housing Trust and the Nationwide building society? Or is the statement meant to be a positive encouragement to such schemes as the one proposed in Sheffield, which will bring into being about 2,000 new homes to rent? That must be a good thing in anyone's book.
How is the position in Sheffield affected by this statement? It is important that the Minister answers that question. Will he also say how section 58 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 will be affected as a result of the other qualifications in his statement. That section empowers local authorities to assist and promote housing associations. That is perfectly acceptable current legislation and it is used by local authorities. Is there any proposal to remove those powers?
The Minister referred to factors that the Government, or Ministers, would take into account before approving such schemes. I realise that in the circumstances of a brief parliamentary statement the Minister could not go into a lot of detail, especially as he is to consult, but it behoves us to put some questions to him now. Will he say now that he will refuse any scheme which gives no nomination rights to a local authority for its tenants or those on the waiting list? I ask that because, in the annexe to the document that he is placing in the Library, it is clearly envisaged that there are possibilities of there being no nomination rights for a local authority. The thing would not operate unless the local authority was putting some money into the scheme anyway. The Minister should give a categorical answer that he will refuse any scheme that does not allow nomination rights for those on the waiting list.
The right to buy is not available to tenants of charitable housing associations. What will be the Minister's view on that, given the complex nature of the schemes that will come up under the proposals? If the local authority gives money to the private sector in the way envisaged in the statement, will all the funds count against the public sector borrowing requirement? I ask that because it is well known that the Treasury looks on housing associations as the public sector, although legally for housing purposes they are in the private sector. It is important that money that is intended to pull new money into housing in the form of partnership is not immediately stamped on by the Treasury by counting the whole lot as public sector borrowing. Such a proposal, if the Treasury operates it, will kill stone dead the proposal of the North housing association for 4,000 new homes to rent all over the country.
The Minister referred in his statement to the fact that such proposals may come under the assured tenancy scheme, but he did not make it clear that they all will. Will Parliament be asked to approve the landlords as it does under the assured tenancy scheme? If other schemes are worked up for this sort of proposal, when public money and local authorities are involved, will Parliament be asked to approve the landlords? The Minister used the phrase "responsible landlords". Our constituents need to know that those landlords are responsible. One way in which to do that, which is not perfect, is by approval of the House of Commons. That would have avoided for start some of the problems that Labour Members are having in the coal communities over the current problems there.
Is any new money envisaged? Clearly the proposal for assured tenancies is designed to bring new money into housing and not to curtail funds. We want a statement that it is envisaged that this scheme will mean net new money.
Will the fact that the Minister will be looking in detail at the proportion of tenants or prospective tenants on housing benefit as is stated in the annex, paragraph 22, be a possible reason for his stopping Conservative-controlled authorities simply handing over the whole of their housing investment programme allocation to the private sector when they clearly cannot, and do not in the case of authorities such as Bromley, want to cope with their housing problems?
If Ministers are to take a decision about schemes and the number of tenants who may or may not be on housing benefit, what will happen to a scheme and a tenant who may at some time in the future lose his job and have to go on housing benefit? Does that mean that it is foreseen that he may be thrown out of the tenancy if any limit that Ministers have placed on the number of tenants who may be receiving housing benefit in any one scheme is broken? Yesterday, at Question Time the Secretary of State spoke about the need to
attract private money to run up as many hostels as quickly as possible … high quality hostels and temporary accommodation of all kinds."—[Official Report, 4 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 985.]
As it is envisaged in the statement that hostels will be used, will the Minister kindly give us an example of a high-quality private hostel of the sort envisaged that would help people in greatest need? That is the term that the Minister used. As I understand it from the statement in the annexe, the Secretary of State will be asked to seek details of the tenants before he will consent to a scheme. He may need the details of the tenants in broad terms, but he will still need details. Is this not getting a little bit too much involved in detail for a Secretary of State or other Minister, and will it not encourage a massive bureaucracy if such a scheme gets off the ground?
We assume that the consultation will be genuine, unlike the rate support grant consultation, and we will await a detailed response until the legislative proposals come forward.
I finish with a brief caveat in the sense of a minor complaint. It is that the statement on the annunciator over the lunch period — "Private Rented Housing" — was somewhat misleading. Given our short debate last night. there will be one hon. Member who will be really pleased that the statement did not bring about what he thought it would. That is the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who explained to us last night that one of his constituents, who said that she had been a lifelong Tory voter, would not vote Tory again because of the minor element of rent control mentioned last night. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes said that that constituent is the secretary of a Cabinet Minister. It turns out that she is also the secretary of a Labour and of a Liberal Member, which is even more complicated, but at least it shows that the fears that the hon. Member or Richmond and Barnes may have had about the annunciator title, because it was somewhat misleading, have not been realised.

Mr. John Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for all the questions that he has asked about this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) is not in his accustomed place. He can speak for himself, as he did very well last night before voting against the Government. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will find, if he looks at the Official Report when it is published tomorrow, that

the threat issued by that secretary, who I am sure serves so many Members in this House dutifully, was that she would never vote Conservative again unless my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes stood up and argued her case. He certainly did that last night—to the chagrin of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip.
On the matter of the annunciator's announcement of what the statement was about, we are rather limited in what we can do. It is not a very big screen and cannot contain too many words. It aptly summed up exactly what this statement is about, introducing a fruitful partnership between the public sector and the private sector in the provision of rented housing. There is a limited amount of public sector involvement in rented housing, as the hon. Member for Perry Barr will have seen from the consultation paper and from listening to my statement. That involvement is about 30 per cent. That is an exact description of what we are seeking to do through this positive statement.
Let me begin by apologising for the convoluted nature of part of the statement. I found myself necessarily reading, for legal reasons, sentences of which Bernard Levin would have been proud as they contained a substantial number of words. I can fully understand that the hon. Member for Perry Barr will need time to look at some of its implications. His first question concerned the Sheffield scheme, of which I am well aware. If Sheffield enters into contractual obligations before midnight tonight, the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who I am pleased to see on the Front Bench this afternoon, will not be required. Any scheme that is entered into before midnight tonight will not require his consent.
On the hon. Gentleman's second and important point about the Housing Associations Act 1985, section 58 will continue, but subject to the consent of the Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman's third question concerned nomination rights. Local authorities want these powers. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities said during the last housing consultative council, which is led by the hon. Gentleman's friend, Mr. Betts, that it would like powers similar to those that the Housing Corporation and housing associations already enjoy. If local authorities are to enter undertakings such as these with funding institutions, they will want nomination rights. Of course there will be a mixture of nomination rights and other forms of finding tenants, otherwise local authorities will not want to enter joint funding arrangements.
Fourthly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the right to buy. We envisaged that any transfer of council tenants into new forms of tenure must involve the transfer with them of the right to buy, for it is a right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I want to develop new forms of mixed tenure. If we bring in entirely new tenants through the introduction of private funding into rented housing, the right to buy would probably not apply. We want a genuine development of the range of choice, more rented housing and to re-establish the right to rent.
The hon. Gentleman's fifth question concerned assured tanancies. If any assured tenancy landlord applies to be registered, that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is subject to a resolution of the House and can be prayed against. That system will continue.
The hon. Gentleman's sixth question was about new money. That is exactly what the statement is about and what the new policy is concerned with. We are bringing


new money into the provision of housing. If Sheffield, or some other council, enters an agreement with a private sector funding institution and offers to provide 30 per cent. of the cost from public funds, for every £1 that it puts in, it will get £3 from the private sector. Councils' money will therefore go much further. We have to ensure, however, that the private sector is not featherbedded against risk. One or two of the schemes that we have seen so far, including some operated by councils about which the hon. Member for Perry Barr knows, seem to be featherbedding the private sector unnecessarily.
As for housing benefit, paragraph 22 of the consultation paper outlines exactly what we are consulting on. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decides whether to issue a consent to a new scheme being introduced by a council, he will wish to take into account whether a disproportionate amount of the tenants who are going into that development receive housing benefit.
We want to ensure that there is more private letting and more diversity of tenure. What I have announced will give councils throughout the country an opportunity to do just that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have further business today before opposed private business at 7 pm. I ask for brief questions, important though this matter is.

Sir Peter Hordern: Will capital allowances for councils be taken into account in this scheme? Will councils suffer under their present restraint? Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), will private sector contributions be counted in the public sector borrowing requirement calculations? However good these schemes are — I commend my hon. Friend on his announcement—is he aware that there is no alternative to a free market in first-time lettings?

Mr. Patten: Indeed. I take my hon. Friend's third point very much to heart. He knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does as well. As for my hon. Friend's second question, no—any private money will not score in terms of public expenditure.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I warmly welcome the aims that were suggested in the first two sentences of the Minister's statement, but I regret that every following sentence diminished the prospect of achieving those aims. Why are the Government so paranoid about local authorities, which try to ameliorate the quite ludicrous limitation of 20 per cent. of capital receipts for housing expenditure by legitimately using section 58 of the Housing Associations Act 1985, that they try to constrict the use of that Act? May I suggest that there is a real difficulty? The Minister says — it is probably accepted by all of us— that he wants to get more money into housing from outside sources but, by catch-all provisions in the statement, he inhibits the entrance of that money into the market. Surely there is an irony here which the Minister must recognise.

Mr. Patten: I do not see any irony, nor do I recognise it. I should have said in reply to the first question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P.

Hordern), which was echoed by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), that this is a revenue scheme and not a capital scheme. It is a means of funding the revenue differences between financing the cost of building and the expected rental income. We are trying to encourage private investing institutions to invest in housing. That is positive.
When the hon. Member for Leeds, West has had a chance, with his characteristic fairness, to reflect on the statement and its Bernard Levinesque-length sentences, he will see that there is much positive, forward-looking opportunity for local councils such as that in Leeds. I know that the hon. Gentleman is worried about housing problems in Leeds, and I hope that he will encourage his council to consider in a positive way what I have announced.

Mr. John Heddle: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on whether his announcement will be widely welcomed by the Building Societies Association, pension funds and other investing institutions, which, no doubt, could provide the responsible finance to enable there to be an increase in private rented accommodation for those who deserve the right to rent'? Can he confirm that the scheme will also apply to short-term tenancies as to assured tenancies? Can he further confirm that the midnight guillotine is a means of stopping Left-wing councils such as Sheffield and others, which I invite him to mention, raiding the private purse and avoiding my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's cash limits by clever, creative accounting?

Mr. Patten: I must leave the Building Societies Association, pension funds and other potential investment institutions to speak for themselves. I naturally hope that they will warmly welcome my announcement. I know that many of those institutions have funds and that, with a certain amount of security and a certain amount of risk, they want to co-operate with local councils to help provide a wider range of rented housing. There are some local authorities, which I can perhaps name—Brent, Camden, Lewisham, Sefton, which I know is a hung council, and Lambeth, for example—which would seem to seek to circumvent the Government's housing policy. After midnight tonight, they will no longer be able to put such schemes into effect as they will have to seek the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Reg Freeson: The Minister has said that the money will not count as public expenditure. He will appreciate that, until now, with one or two minor exceptions in national terms, it has been a strict Treasury rule that any private money which is married to housing association grant or its equivalent should count as public expenditure. Are we to understand from the answer that the Minister has given twice previously that money in the scheme that he has announced today will not count as public expenditure and that when, in future, the Housing Corporation undertakes similar schemes marrying housing association grant to private capital, that money also will not be included as public expenditure? The 30 per cent. figure has been referred to. Before it is finally decided on, may I urge the Minister, with full, serious concern about the housing situation in London, not to stick rigidly to that figure for London costs? If he does, he will get little result in this part of the country, whatever may be achieved elsewhere.

Mr. Patten: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's views as a London Member and as a distinguished former Housing Minister. I take his point about London. If he looks at the statement, he will find in it the word "normally".
As for the 30 per cent. and what is or is not public expenditure, the scheme parallels a scheme which was recently introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in which additional funding has been given to the Housing Corporation to involve mixed funding — a 30–70 percentage split —between the public and the private sector to help house the homeless and young job movers in London. That is why I believe that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities wanted such a scheme. It was not long ago. heavens above, at the Housing Consultative Council that I was asked to bring about such a positive scheme which would enable all local authorities of all political forms to bring in private money. We have responded very quickly to that and I hope that that has been recognised.

Sir Brandon Rhys-Williams: I welcome the Minister's statement most warmly because it shows the genuine nature of the Government's commitment to the revival of the private rented sector, which is particularly important for inner London. May I ask my hon. Friend, in the course of his consultations, to give particular attention to the special needs of people living or wishing to live in flats who may have difficulty with the finance of co-ownership schemes and other new forms of tenure for flats?

Mr. Patten: That is certainly something which local councils, including the council in my hon. Friend's constituency, can examine. I know that my hon. Friend, with his long-standing interest in the rights and welfare of flat dwellers in London, in the public and private sectors, will put these points to his local council.

Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister has referred to his intention to help various agencies and to ensure that rent levels are within the limit that people can afford to pay. Does he have any comment about the private operators who have bought Coal Board houses when the Coal Board refused to sell to sitting tenants? These private operators, having bought those houses, are now offering shorthold tenancies. That is a breach of tenants' protection. Can the Minister tell us how my constituents who are suffering because of the recent sale of NCB houses will be able to meet the proposed massive rent increases which are to be levied or have been requested by the rent officer? Can he also tell us what guidelines are being offered to rent officers to ensure that rents are kept at a reasonable level of increase and so ensure that rents are not allowed to rise so steeply that people cannot afford to pay them?

Mr. Patten: That point was raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) last night during the debate on the orders. I undertook to write to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford. If I may, I will involve the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) in that correspondence in an attempt to deal with those points. These are very complicated issues.

Mr. W. Benyon: I warmly welcome the statement but does my hon. Friend agree that the prerequisite for the scheme's success is that the private

sector participants should have confidence in the future? Many of us believe that going down the avenue of assured tenancies is the right way to proceed and that should be greatly extended in future.

Mr. Patten: That is something on which, happily, there is all-party consent. That point was repeated last night by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) speaking on behalf of the official Opposition, and I believe that support for the assured tenancy scheme is also shared by the alliance parties—

Mr. Meadowcroft: indicated assent

Mr. Patten: —whose spokesman is giving his assent at the moment. If councils use these schemes in the right way and with the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we will achieve that certainty about the future. Central Government, local government and the funding institutions will form a fruitful relationship and partnership to provide more homes for people. That will bring about the eventual breakdown of the barriers between owner-occupation and council housing which damages our society.

Mr. Richard Caborn: May I press the Minister a little further. I am sorry that I have been out of the Chamber, but I have telephoned Sheffield council, which is extremely concerned about the statement, especially in the light of the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). How far must the contracts have progressed in Sheffield, which, as the Minister knows, involve 2,000 builds, in the relationship that he has just described between the public and private sectors? The council wants to know how far down the road the contract must have proceeded. Must there be an absolute position with regard to the signatures on the contract before midnight tonight? I want some guidance on that.

Mr. Patten: It has to be legally binding before midnight tonight.

Mr. James Hill: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated. This is a very difficult path to travel and he must travel in harness with the Opposition because housing is a very emotive subject.
First, could not my hon. Friend make all the transactions freehold? It is common practice in a lease, which can be binding for 99 years, for many provisions to be written in, and that may dissuade some institutions. I would have thought that freehold was the best way to proceed.
Secondly, does the limit on financial aid—or shall we call it a grant? — of 30 per cent. include the freehold land and the properties thereon? If it does, my hon. Friend will have a great deal of success with the institutions.
Thirdly, has my hon. Friend pondered the fact that for some time local government has been able to sell off parts of council property to institutions, and that my local authority has not sold one scrap?
Finally, does my hon. Friend believe that high-rise blocks of flats in urban conurbations are an ideal purchase for an institution?

Mr. Patten: We are of course consulting and I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments about the inhibiting effect of a 99-year lease. That is an important point and


we hope that people who will respond to the consultation process in the private sector as much as the public sector will make those points.
I do not believe that the "grant"—which is the generic phrase that I have been using, because it is a grant from the public sector—must be a grant simply in terms of money. It could also involve loans, guarantees and land at low cost. That might well be of interest to institutions.
We want to consider my hon. Friend's point about selling off blocks of property in public ownership. Councils up and down the country are doing that—and Oldham and Salford councils have been particularly successful—through their co-operation with the private sector.
I believe that blocks of flats can be very good investments. Those investments can be realised only if there is positive management such as exists in some excellent London boroughs such as Wandsworth.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Whatever the merits of the scheme, does the Minister accept that if it is to have any chance of meaningful success and engender the confidence to which he has already referred there must be some assurance among local authorities that the additional calls upon housing investment will be matched by an increase in the housing investment allocation? A very real assurance is needed with regard to that.
If the Minister is to demonstrate good faith with the private sector, would he at least ensure that some of the more scandalous aspects of the sale of Coal Board houses are properly investigated by his Department so that the House and the country can be assured that we are not simply featherbedding the greedy and being unconcerned about the irresponsible?

Mr. Patten: I understand that British Coal has been reviewing its procedures about Coal Board houses. I have been advised that auctions are to be used as a last resort. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I will include him in the correspondence that I am starting with the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien).

Mr. Robin Squire: I warmly welcome the statement by my hon. Friend which can be seen as a landmark in the expansion of the private rented sector after many years of decline. Does my hon. Friend accept that if the assured tenancy scheme grows considerably—as most of us would like—that will bring nearer the day when most, if not all, non-resident, private rent landlords will be registered?

Mr. Patten: We want to see responsible landlordism returned to this country in the interests of increasing the supply of homes for those people who want homes in the rented sector. The assured tenancy has an important part to play in that. We are determined as a Government to restore the right to rent.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Minister aware that the word "midnight" is becoming of special significance to this dictatorial Government? His announcement today will be a heavy blow for those schemes in Sheffield and elsewhere in which there has been cooperation between local authorities and housing associations. Can the Minister tell the Opposition why we

should not tell the people in Greenwich and elsewhere that if the Government are re-elected they intend largely to deregulate the privately rented sector, abolish security of tenure at least for new lettings and bring back once again all the evils of Rachmanism?

Mr. Patten: What the hon. Gentleman should be doing when he goes to Greenwich is encouraging the council leadership to get itself involved in such partnerships between the public and private sector and start bringing in £3 or £4 of private sector money for every £1 of public sector money, which will make the housing investment programme money go that much further.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would agree with me that sensible and rational debate on this subject has been greatly helped by, and the country should be greatly grateful for, to the positive attitude of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).

Mr. Rooker: Thanks very much.

Mr. Marlow: That is the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I hope that is helpful to him.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend could answer his question about how he would define the responsible landlord. Finally, would my hon. Friend agree with me that the haemorrhage of private rented accommodation is not going to be staunched until such time as landords who find they have voids find it more profitable to put them on the rented market rather than to sell them?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Member for Perry Barr made it clear in the debate last night that he is dead against the reintroduction of the private rented sector. I deplore that, and I regard him as an extremely dangerous man for that reason.

Mr. Rooker: Thank you.

Mr. Patten: I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman with his general management committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is right. The motif is responsible landlordism. We want to see that back, as much in the public sector as in the private sector.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: When did we ever have responsible landlordism?

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister assure the House that, under the scheme that he has outlined, rent levels will not rise above those of the relevant local authority in the area concerned? Will he assure us that security of tenure will be the same as in the local authority concerned, and will he say why he has come to the House to tell us that he wishes to bring private sector finance into local government as an investment when exactly the same Government and Minister have refused capital allocation to areas of housing stress, and forced more people into the housing waiting list, with resulting homelessness? His panacea is to bring back Rachmanism through the private enterprise scheme.

Mr. Patten: rose—

Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister answer my question while he is at it?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman asked two specific questions rather than making generalised statements. The


local authorities concerned will be entering agreements with private investors, so will have great control over a range of matters, including rent levels, and that will be clear on the face of any agreement made between the local authorities and funding institutions.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that he wished to see more money put into the provision of housing in the stress areas, and I share that aim. This is one of the ways to ensure that more money is brought into providing homes for people who need them. That is why I hope that the private and public sector involvement in councils will grow.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons for the increase in price for moderate-sized houses in London and other places is that there is no possibility of people finding houses to let? Therefore, what he has said is commendable, but limited. Once having started on this scheme, if it is taken up, will he give it a push and, if necessary, make more money available?

Mr. Patten: I welcome my hon. Friend's welcome. He said that this all looks a bit limited, but it has only been since fairly recently that we have been able to debate the private rented sector without all Labour Members foaming at the mouth, although one or two of them still do, and saying that it was impolite to debate the subject at all. Now, although the Opposition have set their face against the reintroduction of old model private sector renting, they are prepared to talk, as are the alliance parties, about ways to get public and private sector money together. That is a positive message going from the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that, as institutions will enter the housing market and will want a return on their money, they will get it either from the local authorities—the ratepayers—or, as the statement makes clear, if there is to be no featherbedding and they do not get it from the local authorities, the money must come out of the tenants' pockets? That will mean a massive increase in rents for those living in such flats and houses. This is another step down the road to de-control. It also does nothing for the crisis facing about 50 coal mining constituencies, where speculators are making money hand over fist, faster than Rachman ever made it, while the Government do not have the guts to relieve the hardship of thousands of tenants affected in this way.

Mr. Patten: We debated this issue last night. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Skinner: I was here.

Mr. Patten: I am so sorry. The hon. Gentleman was here.

Mr. Skinner: We did not get an answer.

Mr. Patten: I am trying to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
The whole point of this scheme is to make it possible for local authorities, by donations and grants, to bridge the gap between the cost of providing houses and the rents. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the system that has been outlined. He has also misunderstood the fact that Labour-controlled councils have been talking to the City and funding institutions in the interest of getting these schemes going.

Mr. John Fraser: The Minister announced that he would choose retrospective legislation to annul agreements entered into after midnight tonight. Does he realise the massive amount of management time that goes into constructing the sort of agreement that Sheffield intends to, or may have, entered into with the private sector to provide up to 2,000 homes to let? Therefore, will the Minister confirm that, provided that a mutually binding, legal obligation has been entered into, which involves giving financial assistance in the terms of the statement, and provided that the legal obligation exists to provide that assistance, he will not attempt to annul such an agreement that has been entered into before midnight tonight?

Mr. Patten: Yes, I can confirm that, provided that an agreement between Sheffield, or any other council, on the one hand, and any set of funding institutions or individual funding institutions on the other has been brought to legally binding fruition by midnight tonight, that will not be covered by future legislation. However, if some local authorities have schemes that they have been working up and they feel themselves to be disappointed by the legislation that my right hon. Friend is about to introduce, they can speedily turn those schemes into the sort of schemes to which my right hon. Friend would readily give consent. We want to encourage that.

Stocksbridge Engineering Steel Works

Mr. Martin Flannery: I beg to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of disc issing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.
Yesterday evening, at about 4 o'clock, in my constituency, the managing director of the Stocksbridge Engineering Steel Works announced that 600 of the work people would be made redundant. This was an appalling blow, as I shall demonstrate. This works has been famous throughout the world for a century or more. It has a work force of approximately 2,400 people and hence the redundancies are 25 per cent. of the people who work there.
This move was unexpected. I had written to the managing director the week before. In his letter back to me, he showed not the slightest sign of doing this, and said that he could not give me a definitive statement about redundancies. I had seen the shop stewards committee, and it did not know anything about it.
When one takes into account the fact that the works is situated in a small town of 10,000 people, about 10 miles from the city of Sheffield, and only came into the Sheffield, Hillsborough constituency on the reorganisation of the boundaries in the last general election, one realises that, in a town of 10,000, to have 2,400 people out of work is a sad blow. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) is sitting here. He knows what this means to his constituency as well as to mine. It is even more appalling because the town, which is rather tenuously stretched out some miles away from Sheffield, has suffered drastically and the east end of Sheffield lies there still and silent as a result of the depredations of the Government.
The steel workers are now in the gravest difficulty. That great works is the life blood of that small town. It has slimmed down, done everything that the Government wanted and got itself moving as well as it could. It would be remiss if, as the parliamentary representative of the area and now closely connected with the area of the factory, I did not do everything in my power to draw the House's attention to what will be a tragedy for the working people of Stocksbridge Engineering, their families and the general area of Sheffield.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
The announcement yesterday by the management of the Stocksbridge steel works that 600 workers are to be made redundant.
I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman was right to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 20, but I regret that I do not consider that it meets the requirements of the Standing Order and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Points of Order (Procedure)

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would be widely agreed in the House, now that the measure taken by a previous Speaker in departing from the rule for many decades that a point of order is either raised at the moment when the matter occurs with which it is concerned or not at all, that the departure by which points of order allegedly on matters arising in Question Time were postponed until after Question Time but ahead of the normal time for raising points of order with the Chair has not been a successful experiment, for this reason.
It is, in practice, very difficult for Mr. Speaker to say, as Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys did during the bloody assizes,
I can smell a lie before it is uttered.
It is very difficult for Mr. Speaker to say that a point of order is an abuse, that it is not a point of order at all or, alternatively, that it should not claim priority of time by claiming to be concerned with matters directly arising at Question Time when that claim is wholly spurious, before he has heard the point of order concerned. That is the difficulty and, moreover, it places the Chair in a position that is overtly humiliating and ridiculous. That is good neither for the Chair nor for the House.
I think that the House has tried that change in the rule for long enough and that the time has now come to do one of two things: either to revert to the normal rule, the doctrine of the first occasion in which a point of order allegedly to do with an answer at Question Time is raised immediately when the event to which it is alleged to refer occurs, or it has to take its turn in the queue of any points of order for which notice may have been given in the appropriate time after any ministerial statement.
I am not asking you to respond immediately to this suggestion, but to give it serious thought and then make a statement to the House. I believe that the present abuse has become widely regarded as an intolerable abuse that cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely without redress.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. In the light of the exchanges today on the points of order, I shall certainly reflect on what he has said and I shall come back to the House and make a statement in due time.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful.

Orders of the Day — Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).

Mr. Major: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will no doubt endeavour to raise some of the matters in the amendment notwithstanding the fact that you have not selected it, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of this Bill is simply stated. It is to correct a technical defect which recent legal advice has identified in the Social Security Act 1986.
The essence of the advice that we received is that the Act does not give the power we believed existed for the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations the amount to be paid in maternity and funeral payments. The other prescriptive powers necessary for this policy—notably to determine the circumstances of entitlement to payment — seem clear and undoubted. This deficiency came to light following scrutiny of regulations under the Act by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
As the House knows, the 1986 Act encompassed the most substantial set of reforms to the social security system for 40 years. Today's Bill, by contrast, fits on to one sheet of paper. That, at least, should commend it to the House. Nevertheless, despite its brevity, the Bill is essential if we are to direct effective help with maternity and funeral costs where it is most needed.
I am in no doubt that the present arrangements for help with maternity and funeral costs are inefficient and in need of reform. It might be helpful if I set out why that is so together with our proposals for the future.
On maternity payments, the social security system has long recognised the self-evident truth that a baby leads to extra expense. But the current system is clearly unsatisfactory. On the one hand, there is the universal maternity grant of £25. That is expensive in global terms because it is available to everyone, irrespective of their income. But equally it is inadequate because it does not give sufficient help to people on very low incomes. Successive Governments have given the grant such low priority that it has not been increased in value for nearly 20 years. The result of that is that it is now worth a fraction of its original value and it is also disproportionately expensive to administer a very large number of small grants. On the other hand, there are supplementary benefit single payments—based on the practice of totting up the need for each item down to nappies and a plastic bottle. Those payments can be considerably higher but they are restricted to people on supplementary benefit. Those in work on low incomes cannot get any such help at all and rarely have been able to do so in the past, although the Supplementary Benefit, Commission in the 1970s may occasionally have made available discretionary payments.
For funeral expenses the picture is similar. Here, too, there is a universal grant — the death grant — paid irrespective of income. But that grant is only £30, and has been frozen at its present rate even longer than the maternity grant. That speaks volumes for its relevance today. When the death grant was originally introduced. it was intended to pay for a simple funeral, but clearly £30 is quite inadequate for that today. The vast majority of people pay for funerals largely on their own, and for them the death grant is an ineffective irrelevance. Despite its individual irrelevance, it is in global terms an expensive irrelevance simply because it is paid to so many people. As with the maternity grants, it is disproportionately expensive to administer in relation to the benefit actually paid out to individuals. It also gives far too little help to those who genuinely have difficulty paying for a funeral and whom we wish to assist more generously. The only people who can get help with the full cost of a funeral ate, again, those on supplementary benefit. People on low incomes in full-time work, or pensioners just above supplementary benefit levels, are excluded. The death grant has in its present form, therefore, almost every imaginable disadvantage.
I think that there is almost general agreement — I never expect full agreement — that the arrangements I have just outlined are satisfactory. We recognised that in the Green Paper on reform of social security in mid-1985 and decided to replace those arrangements with a more rational system. The solution that we proposed was to concentrate help with maternity and funeral costs on people with low incomes, whether in or out of work, and to pitch that help at a reasonable level.
The detail of our proposals for maternity and funeral payments was developed as we moved on from the Green Paper to the White Paper and then to the very extensive debates on the passage of the Social Security Bill both in Committee and on the Floor of the House last year. But throughout that the essence of our proposals has been well known from the outset.
In respect of maternity assistance, we are proposing a flat rate amount which will make a reasonable contribution to the cost of providing for a baby. Shortly before Christmas I announced that the amount would be £80, being slightly more than three times as much as the current maternity grant. The criteria for payment of that will be straightforward. Those on supplementary benefit or family income supplement will be eligible, subject to the usual rules on capital. From April 1988, recipients of income support or family credit will be eligible in the same way, thus enabling us to avoid the need for a separate income test, and I think that will be generally welcomed. We intend that the payments will be publicised and applications can be handled simply by post where that is desired.
We have aimed specifically at relatively simple arrangements, picking out the best of supplementary benefit or maternity grant rules, as the case may he. It might be useful to illustrate that point. For example, people will be able to get maternity payments from 11 weeks before the expected birth to three months afterwards — like the maternity grant but rather more generous than the supplementary benefit limits. On the other hand, people will get maternity benefits for adopted babies—unlike maternity grants but like supplementary


benefit. I hope that, whatever other differences may emerge this afternoon, the House will acknowledge the logic and fairness of that approach.
There are two further points I would wish to stress about these maternity payments. First, they will be grants and not loans. Secondly, the payments will not be constrained by the budget of the social fund. If someone meets the criteria, she will get help. I stress these points because, despite the fact that we have made them very clear over the last year or so, there seemed to be some misunderstanding in the mind of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) when I announced a few days ago that we would be introducing this Bill. The hon. Gentleman on that occasion still referred to
Loans for maternity and funeral expenses
and to "cash limiting".
I say to the hon. Gentleman that that is wholly wrong in terms of our proposals and I am surprised that he should have made that comment after the extensive debates we had on the subject last year. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain that lapse when he speaks.

Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the Minister because I think it is now clear that maternity and funeral expenses will be grants but it appears that other payments from the social fund will be loans. I hope the Minister will be able to answer this question before he concludes his speech. We know the fund will be cash limited. Let us say the sum is X million pounds a year cash limit. Will that be paid into the fund each year? If it is, given that most of the payments from the fund will be loans, is it right to assume that the fund will grow considerably in size each year?

Mr. Major: We shall be making announcements about the size and operation of the fund when we finish further consultation work that is still continuing. Insofar as earlier points about grants are concerned, the maternity and funeral payments will be paid in the fashion I have set out. In terms of much of the rest of the social fund, it will be loans, although there is also the community care aspect within the social fund which will be grants and not loans. One can foresee circumstances where people such as those we shall be concerned with this afternoon may find themselves qualifying for grants under that aspect of the social fund as well. We have a great deal to debate, no doubt at a fairly early stage, on matters of that kind.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful to the Minister. I appreciate that there is further discussion to go on and we wish him well with the Treasury in that discussion. Following on the point of principle raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), what about the practical impact on people on supplementary benefit or other forms of state benefit under the social fund? If they are given loans, how will they pay them back? It is a practical question that has never been adequately answered.

Mr. Major: We had extensive debates on the social fund during the Committee period in which it was made clear that the loans would be recoverable from future benefits paid to those who take the loans. That is not a novel proposition but was set out in great detail during the passage of the Bill upstairs. That principle is well understood in the House. We still have to debate, no doubt

at a further stage, the detailed operations of the social fund when the size of the budgets and related matters are determined.
I concede that that was the point underlying the observations made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but the basic principles of what is determined and how it will be repaid has been known for some time. Of course, to an extent it will depend on the underlying weekly income benefit rates, which will be set in the autumn of this year, to take effect from April 1988. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that until we reach the normal uprating period no one can be entirely certain what the income support and the other relevant rates will be. I acknowledge the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. The levels of those rates will be important and on that point I need no instruction from anyone. In any event, I again stress that we are talking of grants, not loans, because I know that even now — [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has just indicated it again —there may be some misunderstanding on those points and I wish to see those misunderstandings removed.
I am grateful to both hon. Gentlemen for letting me reiterate the precise circumstances in which the maternity and funeral payments will be made, the nature of those payments, and in particular the non-repayable nature of those particular payments.
It might be useful to turn to our proposals for help on funeral costs. These proposals will allow everyone on low incomes to pay for a funeral if they do not have the resources to do so, which is something that the present arrangements patently fail to do. We are proposing to pay the full cost of a reasonable funeral. The arrangements will be not unlike those which now operate for some people on supplementary benefit. The big difference is that we are extending such arrangements to other low income groups — that is to say, specifically, to people arranging funerals who are on family income supplement or housing benefit as well as those on supplementary benefit. From April 1988, similar arrangements will apply to those receiving income support or family credit. I hope it will be generally recognised that that is a very significant increase in the amount of effective help which will be made available. I hope that the House in general and the Opposition Front Bench in particular will be inclined to acknowledge that, although I appreciate that they will have other points of difference with us this afternoon.

Mr. George Park: Would the Minister care to comment on a constituency case brought to me concerning a widow on supplementary benefit who had borrowed £375 from her son and needed repayment of it, but because the funeral bill had been paid she was refused a funeral grant?

Mr. Major: Under the arrangements that we propose, the lady in those circumstances would be able to have assistance from the fund and would not have been required to borrow that money in the first instance. That illustrates one of the improvements in this system and I think that will be generally helpful. The problem raised by the hon. Gentleman may have other ramifications. Insofar as they affect supplementary benefit matters, if the hon. Gentleman cares to give me their details I will have them examined for him as speedily as possible.
This proposal means that the number of people who will have cover—I emphasise the word cover—for the


cost of a reasonable funeral, assuming they have no other resources to meet the cost, will be increased from about 4½ million to about 8 million. That is why I felt that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who is engaging in a seminar with the hon. Member for Birkenhead, was mistaken when he spoke the other day about me
insisting on taking powers to cut funeral payments to pensioners and others
and
forcing more and more of them to build up savings for their funerals."—[0fficiat Report, 22 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 1043.]
In fact, we are doing precisely the opposite and our proposals will greatly help many people on low incomes. Once again, because of the misunderstanding in the House and beyond—[Interruption.]

Mr. Frank Field: The seminar my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead was giving me was on this very point. Surely it would make a difference to poor old people being scared about dying only if the grant is paid to other people outside the range of categories that the Minister has spoken about, people who are not on benefit. As I understand the arrangment, people will qualify only if the person who is being buried is poor, not if they are in the other categories. Am I wrong on that?

Mr. Major: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is the benefit position of the person responsible for arranging the funeral that is relevant.

Mr. Field: If the widow referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) was not on housing or supplementary benefit, she would still be stuck with the bill.

Mr. Major: I would wish to look at the precise details of the difficulties faced by the constituent of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park). We are extending the availability of substantial practical assistance with the funeral costs of someone for which a person has responsibility from a cover of 4·5 million people to a potential cover of 8 million people. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will seek to develop his argument on Monday, but that is the practical underlying effect of the Bill.

Mr. Field: With regard to the figure of 4 million, most of those who will lose the entitlement are old people, most of whom will die fairly soon and will therefore be eligible for the grant. The figure of 8 million is based on those on specific benefits, many of whom are not old and are unlikely to die in the near future. So it is misleading to give those two figures.

Mr. Major: I think not. The only people who will find themselves at a practical disadvantage are those who do not fall into the qualifying groups, who will lose the £30 flat rate grant.

Mr. Field: Widows.

Mr. Major: That may or may not be. If widows are in poor circumstances we wish to help them. Our proposition will offer them more substantial help than before. The £1,000 widow's payment which comes into effect in 1988 is entirely disregarded for capital purposes. The principal loss for a person will simply be the £30 flat rate grant. The gain will be for those on low incomes, who will find that the full cost of a funeral will be met. These days, in any part of the country, that would rarely be less than £350 and

would probably average £550. To the many people who worry deeply about meeting that cost, the practical effect of what we are doing will offer considerable comfort. I think that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Mr. Field: I accept that.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that after April the £1,000 to which any widow would be entitled will be disregarded? Will he further confirm that, with regard to the constituent of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park), any house that the widow may have been left by her deceased spouse will also be disregarded when assessing funeral costs?

Mr. Major: Yes, I can offer that reassurance to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The Minister is kind to give way so often. The move away from insurance may give rise to many anomalies. How will the Department know what insurance moneys are available, either as a result of the death or from insuring other people?

Mr. Major: It may be that the estate of the deceased, when it is realised, will have the resources to pay for the funeral. As at present, the cost of the funeral will be a first charge on the estate and will be recovered. But it will not, under any circumstances whatever, be recovered from the person who had the loan to carry out the responsibility of arranging and paying for the funeral. Under no circumstances would it be recovered from the person who paid for the funeral upon receiving a loan, but it could be recovered from the estate at a much later date when the estate is proved, if it had the resources in it. I emphasise that the person borrowing the money may be sure that he or she will not be required to repay the money. I think that that was the underlying anxiety in the hon. Gentleman's mind.
Once again, I must point out that we are not seeking to cash-limit the funeral payments. They, too, will be made to those who meet the criteria without regard to any budget. The payments will not be loans to be recovered from the applicant's own resources. In order to direct effective help where it is most needed we shall, first, take account of sums to be put towards the cost of the funeral and the capital disregard limit. That is in line with current traditional arrangements. We have also made it clear that the lump sum payment of £1,000 proposed for widows will be disgregarded in full. I hope that that is beyond doubt.
Secondly, we have said that if the estate of the deceased —the point referred to by the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Bidwell)—when it is settled, turns out to have money in it to pay for the funeral, the payment will be recovered from that. That is, of course, a long-standing principle that funeral costs are the first call upon the estate of a deceased. However, that is a substantial improvement on the present supplementary benefit arrangements whereby help is not given in the first place if there is sufficient money in the estate. I suspect that that is the point that prompted the hon. Gentleman's question. We have eased that and are giving people without sufficient resources of their own the confidence that a payment for funeral costs will be made when needed, with recoveries from the estate, if appropriate, taking place later. I emphasise again that the recoveries will be only from the


estate. There is no question whatever of the funeral payments being loans to be recovered from the present or future income of the applicant.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. If someone is eligible for supplementary benefit and housing benefit but does not receive them, perhaps because he has not applied, would he still be eligible for funeral expenses?

Mr. Major: The logic of our proposals is that such a person would be eligible, but I shall check that important point and write to my hon. Friend if what I have said is not accurate.
The new arrangements for help with funerals will be handled as sensitively as possible and with the minimum of detailed questioning. By using income-related benefits as "passports" we shall avoid a separate income test. That will be generally welcome and helpful. Moreover, we are also cutting some of the detailed rules now existing in the supplementary benefit arrangements which concern the relationship of the person arranging the funeral to the deceased and which "deem" contributions to the cost from other family members. Such unnecessary difficulties will go and I for one will be glad to see the back of them. In future, people will be able to apply for help by post or in person as they wish.
Those then are our proposals and they represent a substantial improvement on the present situation. However, as I set out in my statement last week, it is clear that a few vital words necessary to implement the policy were omitted from the 1986 Act and that is why we have introduced the Bill.
The Bill has only two clauses. The first seeks to amend the 1986 Act to remedy the defect I have described. It simply enables regulations to be made, not only to prescribe who should get help with maternity and funeral costs, but how much that help should be—whether in relation to particular times of expenditure or otherwise.
The second clause contains the short title—the Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Act 1987. It also contains a wholly standard provision—similar to that in the 1986 Act—relating to Northern Ireland. This would enable an Order in Council to be made, subject to the negative resolution procedure, for purposes corresponding to this Act.
That is it, as far as the Bill is concerned. It is as brief and as straightforward as that. We shall also—as I told the House the other day—revoke the regulations which were queried by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on grounds of vires. Subject to Parliament's agreement, we intend to lay a fresh set of regulations along similar lines in due course under the powers which this Bill is designed to provide.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the much-needed reform of help with maternity and funeral costs to go ahead as intended from April this year. I do not believe that it would be right to abandon that reform simply because of a technical error, unfortunate though that error may be. The right answer to a problem like this is to find a straightforward solution. That is what we have done with this Bill.
To sum up, there is no doubt that reform is urgently needed. There is no doubt that the proposals I have outlined again today mean that we shall direct effective

help to those who really need it. Those most in need will get most help. That must be the right policy and this Bill will enable us to achieve it. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Michael Meacher: This is a little Bill, almost incomprehensible in its drafting. However, it raises two fundamental issues. One is the abolition of the contributory principle which, before this Government came to office, was always a foundation of the welfare state. The other issue is the operation of the social fund, which remains the most objectionable element of that thoroughly objectionable piece of legislation passed last year, the Social Security Act.
For the last 40 years, the contributory principle has been central to the social security system. It was the cornerstone of the Beveridge plan in 1942 when he wrote:
It is, first and foremost, a plan of insurance—of giving in return for contributions benefits up to subsistence level, as of right and without a means test, so that individuals may build freely upon it.
It is this which the abolition of the death grant and the maternity grant under this Bill will destroy. This point was made rather forcefully to me a few weeks ago by a former constituent. He wrote to me an entirely unsolicited and aggrieved and angry letter from which I shall quote:
Before I retired I was manager of Oldham DHSS and in that capacity I often corresponded with you. You may, therefore, be concerned at the moral and legal implications of the proposed abolition of the contributory death grant. I paid for death grant from 1948 until I retired and then had no more liability for such contributions. The fund, however, still had a liability to pay out on my death. In commercial terms I had a paid-up policy and had it been with a friendly society, the money would be safe. It is this policy that the Government unilaterally intends to abolish.
Any private company doing this would be taken to court and convicted of fraud. Previously when a benefit has been abolished it has still been paid to those already qualified. What will happen to my money and that of millions of other pensioners? It is now in the fund awaiting payment. If you cannot obtain a satisfactory answer for me, I am eager to appeal to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
I shall certainly raise that case with the Minister in an effort to get a reply which satisfies my constituent. I shall pursue the matter if the Minister does not wish to give an answer now.
That correspondent raises a serious point which the Minister did not begin to answer. How can the Government justify unilaterally terminating a right to benefit for which contributions have been made in good faith throughout an entire working life of more than 40 years? The rejection of any such notion and support for the principle of a right to benefit based on contribution irrespective of other circumstances has hitherto been agreed in almost all parts of the House.
I shall quote one right hon. Member who in Committee moved an amendment to the National Insurance Bill to provide all widows aged 32 or over with a minimum pension of 30 shillings a week. That dates it a bit. The right hon. Member was taxed about widows with large unearned incomes from an inherited estate. The right hon. Member replied:
I am dealing with anomalies within the National Insurance Scheme, because under the scheme one gets certain benefits in return for certain contributions. I do not think anyone would say, in dealing with an insurance scheme which gives certain benefits in return for certain contributions—there could be no justification for saying—'You shall not get the benefits because you can afford to look after yourself.' If one has a fire insurance and pays certain premiums and


then one suffers a fire, the insurance company does not turn round and say, 'You are not going to get benefit because you can afford to do the repairs yourself.' This is an insurance scheme". — [Official Report, 3 December 1964; Vol. 703, c.810.]
It is not often that I quote that right hon. Member in support. The right hon. Member who said that is the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), the Prime Minister.
In case any hon. Member thinks that the right hon. Lady's views have changed over the last 23 years, I shall give one more quotation—her reply as Prime Minister to her hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell). [Interruption.] Perhaps those Government Members who are chanting might like to listen to what their right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a short time ago. She said:
As my hon. Friend knows, the national insurance scheme is not a mere transfer of income. It is an insurance scheme and one's right to benefits from it depends on the contributions made throughout life. It is important to maintain that link.
The proposal in this Bill and in the Social Security Act 1986 to abolish death and maternity grants is not compatible with insurance logic and proper commercial practice. It is totally inconsistent with what the Prime Minister said 23 years' ago and with what she still says today.
If Ministers are felons for depriving people of monetary benefits that they have earned, at least they are consistent felons because this is not the first time that they have done that. They have been at it for years. No fewer than six national insurance benefits for which people have contributed have been abolished in the last four years, without so much as an apology. The earnings-related supplement to unemployment, sickness and maternity benefit was abolished in January 1982. Industrial injury benefit was abolished and sickness benefit was replaced in April 1983. Child dependency additions to the short-term benefits were abolished in November 1984. The reduced rate unemployment sickness and maternity benefit and industrial disablement benefit below 14 per cent. were abolished in October 1986.
It would not be quite so bad if, having cut the benefits, the Government also cut the premiums, but they have increased national insurance contributions by half as much again—from 6 per cent. to 9 per cent. Any private insurance agency would scarcely stay in business if it
offered a deal like that. If that is not bad enough, the Government are now proposing unilaterally to abandon nine more national insurance benefits in the next year or so. Two of them, the death grant and the maternity grant, are the subject of this Bill, but there is a host of others. Children's special allowance is to be abolished and maternity allowance is to be replaced in April 1987. Industrial widows' benefit is to be abolished, widows' allowance is to be replaced, age-related widows' pension is to be abolished, the widows' fund is to be ended, and personal extension of the widowed mothers' allowance is to be abolished, all in April 1988.

Mr. Major: Since the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the insurance principle and has just listed a number of benefits that he claims will be reduced, would he care to speculate on how much national insurance contributions would have to rise in order to meet all the commitments that he believes should be met and in recent weeks has promised will be met?

Mr. Meacher: If the Government had not allowed unemployment to increase by between two and three

times, the main reason for the overwhelming inflation in social security costs, it would have been perfectly possible to maintain all those benefits and to have had a lot over.
The Government's attitude to the welfare state is rather like those demolition contractors who are said to make a speciality of legally dismantling buildings on which there are preservation orders. They start by knocking down a fairly innocuous-looking bit but do it in a way that makes another rather more vital bit dangerous. They then call in the district surveyor, who sticks a dangerous structure notice on it and orders them to demolish it forthwith. In doing so, another bit becomes dangerous, so that must be demolished, and so it goes on. Not long afterwards, of course, the whole lot is a heap of rubble. That is what the Government dream of doing to the welfare state. It is not a frontal attack but a constant erosion, nibbling away, bit by bit, until one day the nation will wake up to find that there is little left of any substance.
Originally, the welfare state was envisaged as a redistributive mechanism between the classes. It was intended also to offer high-quality benefits and services, universally available almost as a badge of citizenship. These principles have been allowed to wither as a result of successive actions by the Government. Under the Government, the redistributive principle has been cut right back by constant reductions in the Treasury supplement, financed by all citizens out of general taxation, from 18 per cent. to as little as 7 per cent. That has thrown more arid more of the funding of the welfare state on to working-class people because of the ceiling on national insurance contributions of one and a half times national average earnings, which minimises contributions from the higher paid groups within the middle class.
The principle of high-quality universal benefits is constantly undermined by the Government, partly by the regular elimination of universal benefits, as in the Bill, and, as I have described, partly by the Government's constant practice of making the beneficiaries of the welfare state pay more and more in contributions for a smaller arid smaller range of benefits.
The Bill is a classic case in point. The death grant is to be replaced by means-tested help with funeral costs. It callously ignores the intense emotions that the issue generates in pensioners. The Dignity in Death Alliance has put the matter exactly as that age group feels about it. It states:
members take the view that an insurance principle is at stake. People have paid for this benefit throughout their lives and, as with any other, they are entitled to claim it.
It goes on:
there is a total rejection of any form of means testing at the time of death. This is both personally cruel and grossly expensive. The cost of administering a small financial benefit may be higher than its worth.
The same principle applies to the maternity grant, which is also being abolished. It is somewhat ironic that — I presume that the Minister knows this — it was a Tory Minister who, in 1980, introduced the principle of a universal benefit on the ground that, otherwise, many young mothers would have inadequate contributions to qualify. In addition, a few months later in 1980, the Government published a consultative document called "A Fresh Look at Maternity Benefits" in which all three options that were canvassed involved the retention of a universal maternity grant. If it was right then, why is it not right now?


To pose a similar question in a slightly different form, if universal death or maternity grants have always been supported, as they have, by public opinion and indeed by the same Government in an earlier, slightly more liberal reincarnation, why do the Government gratuitously insist on bringing the two benefits within the purview of the odious social fund when there is absolutely no necessity for them to do so?
The other fundamental issue raised by the Bill concerns the operation of the social fund. There are four major objections to the proposal that still are unresolved. The first is the right to independent appeal, to which the Minister, in one of those classic displays of weasel words for which he is becoming famous, referred in his statement in the House a fortnight ago in explaining why the Bill was necessary. On 22 January — he repeated much the same today — he said:
the error arose as a result of an attempt to reflect quickly the will of the other place." —[Official Report, 22 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 1045.]
The Minister referred to the right of independent appeal. As he probably knows, gratitude in the other place is rather less than gushing, and it is clear why that is so. As was said at the time, it is now proposed that an appeal should lie from the regional DHSS civil servant nominated by the Secretary of State to a senior civil servant, who will not be nominated by the Secretary of State, and that the civil servant should instead be appointed by a commissioner. The question that arises is: who appoints the commissioner? The answer is: the Secretary of State. The commissioner thus appointed by the DHSS will have power to appoint social fund inspectors. Who are they? They are none other than those made available to the commissioner by the Secretary of State. To call that an independent appeals mechanism is to stretch credulity beyond endurance. It is rather like Humpty Dumpty in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the Minister — "Words mean what I say they mean." That is not convincing for a drafter of laws.

Mr. Major: The direct analogy in the social security system is the chief adjudication officer and the adjudication officers, who over many years have determined all sorts of matters and have regularly been recognised to be independent, both during the time that the hon. Gentleman was a distinguished luminary of the Labour Government and today. It is rather unwise of him to cast doubt on the proposition in this fashion.

Mr. Meacher: The Minister has not answered the point that I made. He should re-examine my words. He will find that it is all wheels within wheels. There is absolutely no independence in the appeals mechanism.
It is still left open as to whether an appellant has a right to an oral hearing and representation. Apparently, that matter is to be left to the Secretary of State's directions or the social fund commissioners' guidelines, without parliamentary accountability. In our view, such a basic right as that should be decided by Parliament through regulations.
Another major unresolved issue concerns entitlement as opposed to discretion. Our view is clear. A discretionary system is undesirable because it leads to variations, it increases the stigma of claiming, especially among the elderly, it is highly complex and it is not even necessarily

more flexible. In particular, there are certain benefits for which there should be a clear entitlement to a grant and not a loan. One example relates to exceptionally severe weather payments—if the Minister does not wince at the idea. It is bad enough at present, when payments are made as a grant, that, in the first week of the freeze when the country shivered, they were paid to only a handful of people in one of the 64 weather station areas, and in the third week, when the weather became much milder, the Goverment panicked and paid them to everybody indiscriminately. What would happen if it were a loan? Would pensioners be forced to pay back the money?
The third unresolved issue concerns the social fund itself, which is the final safety net in the social security system that Ministers notoriously have insisted must be cash-limited. But they have also said — if it is not a paradox — that the fund will not run out. It is still not clear what will happen if the normal day-to-day requests for aid from the fund exceed the budget allocated. Will applicants, however manifest their need, simply be refused assistance or be told that they will get less assistance as the year passes and as the budget dwindles?

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend try to interpret whether the decision of the Minister in respect of funeral and maternity grants means that such grants will have first call on the social fund? — [Interruption.] I fail to see what is so funny about this matter. If they have first call on the social fund, in effect it will mean that all other payments from the social fund could be reduced proportionately because of payments of funeral and maternity benefit that are decided in advance.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting matter. It is for the Minister to reply to it, and I hope that he will do so. I agree with my hon. Friend. It appears that scarce funds could be pre-empted, which means that everyone else will go without.
The last matter concerns the vexed issue of loans as against grants. It seems that current DHSS thinking — the Minister referred to this but did not answer the point that I am about to make — is that only community care needs will be met by grants; all other needs will be met by loans. If that is so, the question that must be answered is, what exactly is meant by community care? It is a vague phrase and it may mean different things to different people.
In a recent speech the Minister said — for the first time, I believe — that loans would not be available to claimants until they had been in receipt of income support for six months. That opens up a new and ominous prospect. During the first six months on benefit, claimants are often adjusting to a much lower standard of living, although they are still carrying unalterable expenditure commitments. Already, home owners are suffering the loss of a quarter to a half of their income because of the iniquitous regulation that cuts mortgage interest payments for those on the dole. The latest proposal is a harsh extension of what is becoming the all too frequent practice of this Government of gratuitously kicking a family when it is down.
As for the level of these two proposed means-tested benefits, the current £30 level, to which the Minister referred, for the death grant has been repeatedly dismissed by Tory Members of Parliament and by the Minister today


as so insignificant as to justify its transfer into a limited means-tested category. We repudiate those values and attitudes. If a universal grant in such a sensitive area is too low, we believe that the right approach is not to abolish it but to raise it to a reasonable level. That is why we have pledged to increase it from £30 to £200.
As for maternity grant replacement, the Government propose that the sum of £80 should be paid out of the social fund.

Mr. Frank Field: Given that if the Bill is passed there will be machinery to claw back money from the estates of those with adequate funds, would it not be right for the Opposition to increase the sum that is to be paid out but to claw it back from estates with adequate funds?

Mr. Meacher: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but it is contradicted by the eloquent testimony of the Prime Minister, for which I have a great deal of sympathy: that if people pay for something on an insurance basis, they are entitled to it, irrespective of their total resources. However, I think that we should look at that point again.
As for the maternity grant, in 1983 the average single payment for maternity items was £60, in addition to the £25 grant. A grant now of £80, therefore, represents a cut in assistance for the average mother on supplementary benefit, even at 1983 prices, let alone at 1987 prices. I hope that the Government will reconsider this sum so that at least there will be no loss. I hope that they will also reconsider their very regrettable decision that mothers who are under 16 years of age should no longer be entitled to assistance with maternity expenses in their own right.
We reject the Bill. Unilaterally, it abolishes benefits to which people have a right, having earned their entitlement by contributions that they have made throughout their working lives. We reject it, too, because it is designed to consolidate a cash-limited social fund which, coming from this Government, is an insult on top of the injury of having allowed poverty to double in the first place.
This may be a minor measure but it has an ugly parentage in the Fowler Social Security Act of last year. For the sake of the people of this country, I pledge that we shall sweep away both this and its parent as soon as we come to power.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am at something of a loss to know how to respond. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) talks about a kick in the teeth for families in crisis, but I have always felt, ever since I took my first job working for the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), that the families who are constantly kicked in the teeth are those working on low incomes. It is precisely those who are not receiving supplementary benefit or income support who stand to benefit most from many of the changes in the Social Security Act 1986 and from the modifications that are being made to the death and maternity grants. It is to precisely those people that I want to refer.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the contributory principle. I was not sure whether he would develop this argument and say that in order to protect the contributory principle and to ensure that all those with maternity or funeral needs should be properly provided for he would extend maternity and death grants — at the rate of £80 for maternity grants and several hundred

pounds for funeral grants — to all those who had contributed, in which case the £28 billion spending programme appears likely to cause older people much more anxiety than their present very real concern of sonic of them that they may be unable to meet their funeral costs.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Government's attitude to the welfare state in terms of knocking down an edifice. The welfare state has developed in recent years in such a way that now it is rather like a chaotic, higgledy-piggledy housing estate through which it is quite impossible to find one's way, with muggers around every corner. Coherent, clear planning, so that people know what benefits are available and how they can be obtained, is long overdue. In my view, that is precisely what the Social Security Act has sought to achieve.
The hon. Gentleman also read out a list of benefits that he suggested the Government are modifying. I should be interested to know whether he can recite the precise details, thresholds and amounts of each and every one of those series of benefits. I could not do so. I doubt whether even the respected hon. Member for Birkenhead could go through precisely all those benefits and describe how they work.
The complexity of the present system leads inevitably to unfairnesses and to the need for an army of welfare rights advisers to help people to discover how the single payments system works. It has led to enormous inequalities in different parts of the country, dependent on whether one is clever enough to work out these vast complexities by going through paragraphs of regulations and matching one's predicament to all those regulations.
The social fund is both a much more flexible and a much more simple response. Above all, it will be understood much more clearly by ordinary claimants, as opposed to welfare specialists. That is a laudable goal. At the same time, more help will be given to that long overlooked group of people, those who are on low incomes.
The new help that is to be provided for funeral expenses will be much more realistic. The £30 grant hardly covers the cost of two bouquets of flowers. Many people suffer great anxiety about how to finance a funeral under the existing arrangements. Ludicrous restrictions are placed on those payments concerning the relationship of the claimant to the deceased. Furthermore, if there is deemed to be money in the estate, even though it is inaccessible. claimants are not entitled to help. The death of a relative causes an emotional crisis for many people. It can also create a financial crisis until the financial position of the deceased finally emerges. These arrangements will ensure that more people will benefit and that those involved will be provided with a sensible and realistic benefit.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister referred to widows, on the basis of the case that was mentioned earlier. The fact that the widow's £1,000 will be entirely disregarded, let alone the value of any property that may have been left by the spouse, will make a substantial difference.

Mr. Frank Field: That was an important statement, but the truth is that most widows will not be helped because their pension will take them just above the level of entitlement. Their husbands would probably also have been above that level and therefore not eligible for help.
The awful fact is that, although we can say that the £1,000 will be disregarded, that sum will have to be used to pay the funeral bills.

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is also making the better point that, because many widows may just be above the supplementary benefit level and the rigid cut off, they have not stood to gain at all in the past. Now, however, because of the ability to help more people including those who are entitled to housing benefit or family credit, there will be a gain from a much fairer and a much more appropriate mechanism.

Mr. Frank Field: indicated assent.

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the Dignity in Death Alliance and its concerns. The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party that thinks it can buy off every interest group with a promise to meet all their needs, and solve every problem with an open cheque book, so long as it is not the Labour party's. I can appreciate his view. However, the elderly are most fearful of inflation running at 25 per cent. again, because they will be unable to predict what will happen.
The hon. Gentleman dared to raise the question of exceptional weather payments. I wondered what benefit the elderly had had from exceptional weather payments when the Labour party was in government. Exceptional weather payments have been introduced on a statutory basis only since this Government came to power.
The £25 maternity benefit has become irrelevant in terms of the total costs involved. It has been suggested that a pregnant woman on social security can claim a single payment. A paper has been circulated suggesting that the average single payment claim amounts to £60. To that is added the £25 maternity grant, which would mean that pregnant women will be worse off with the new grant of £80. That is entirely fallacious, because only a fraction of pregnant women on social security know, understand or claim the single payment. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will be able to give an estimate in his closing remarks. I understand that fewer than a quarter of pregnant women on social security claim the single payment. Again one sees a gross inequality in the distribution of the benefit.

Ms. Jo Richardson: If the hon. Lady is right in saying that only a fraction of women claim that amount, would it not be better if the Government advertised a take-up campaign? The point is that that amount is available for claiming.

Mrs. Bottomley: I endorse efforts by anybody to promote awareness of benefits, but the hon. Lady will have seen the lists of single payments. It is difficult even for someone with two degrees to understand the system. How will somebody who has difficulty making ends meet and managing their family cope? The Government must ensure that realistic, reliable and proper payments can be claimed. When these benefits extend to those on income support or family credit and to other low income groups, they will ensure that greater help is given to the average mother in these categories.

Ms. Richardson: Why not increase the benefit?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am sure that the hon. Lady will explain in the way that her party always does how, were

her party ever to come to power, every benefit would be doubled or trebled. I have already suggested that her party believes that all problems can be solved with a cheque book: whatever anybody offers, offer more. I do not share that political philosophy. A responsible Government must look at the people who are genuinely in need, and target realistic and understandable help at those groups.
Much concern has been expressed about mothers under the age of 16. There were 1,390 such mothers in 1985. They are a worrying group who have a higher infant mortality rate and suffer greater health risks than other groups. It is not true that these mothers would receive no help under the present arrangements — they would simply be deemed to be their parents' children. If a 15-year-old mother of prosperous parents had a child, she would not be entitled to the £80, but if her parents were on family credit or income support she would be so entitled.
There are those who would seriously question whether a 15-year-old—or even a 16 or 17-year-old—should be deemed to be an autonomous individual in terms of social security regulations. That is not the situation in many other European countries, or in America.

Mr. Corbyn: Would the hon. Lady return to reality for a moment? Is she aware that, when a woman under 16 becomes pregnant and gives birth, it occasionally results in enormous family tension, and sometimes she is thrown out of the house? Under the Government's proposals, that woman and her baby would go without any assistance whatsoever, unless they could find a friend, relative or neighbour who was prepared to help them. Is that what the hon. Lady wants?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman seems unfamiliar with what happens in social services departments. Having been a social worker for many years, and a magistrate in a juvenile court, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that until the age of 17 years a child is the responsibility, if the parents are not responsible for her, of the social services department. Any pregnant 15-year-old who did not have the support of her parents would be a high priority for any social services department. If the hon. Gentleman has so little confidence in the social service department in his constituency, I am sorry for him. The Surrey social services department would make a high priority of any such case, and the 15-year-old would be given the fullest consideration. To regard her as an independent unit financially is misleading, because that might imply that she was an independent adult, which may not be in the longterm interests of her or her child.
Much was made of the social fund and appeals for the social fund. The Labour party seems to have lost all perspective of how social security payments are conducted. The social security budget has increased by 35 per cent. since 1979 half of that is attributed to the real increase in rates of benefits. The basic mechanism of our social security system is the benefit rate, not the single payment or special allowance. The Opposition want a system of endless single payments and special arrangements. That would lead to a greater sense of injustice and unfairness. The point of the social fund is to not let this ludicrous tail wag the dog.
In view of the way that single payments have escalated — more worryingly, the regional and patch variations in single payments claims — one cannot consider it a fair or


just system. We should have a full and independent tribunal system for the basic benefit, which would remain untouched.
I welcome the fact that the Government felt able to show their ever-flexible approach by responding to concern about the social fund, thus enhancing the whole appeals mechanism. The question of appeals must be kept in perspective. In 1984 there were 3 million single payments. Some may think, looking at the total number of benefit claims, that that is a remarkable situation, given the time, human error and delay involved in each claim. Out of the 3 million single claimants there were 37,000 appeals. Of those 37,000 appeals, 8,000 cases were found in favour of the appellant. In other words, in only one quarter of one per cent. of cases was the single payment altered. In view of the time, expense and waste involved, one must look for some element of proportionality, and look to the main need of the social security system, which is reliable and secure with easily available benefits — benefits which are available not only for those on income support, but for those on family credit.
I appreciate the Government putting right this technical deficiency. I welcome the fact that the Government have remedied this fault in the social security system, within its complex, disorganised and inaccessible benefits. They corrected the defect in terms of allowing benefit to be available for those on low incomes, whether they are in or out of it. Above all, they had the courage to put right what has been wrong with maternity and death payments over many years.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I shall follow some of the points made by the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley). In the earlier part of her speech, she gave an excellent analysis of the complexities and anomalies that seem to be inherent in the present social security system. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the aim is to end the artificial distinction between national insurance and tax and to integrate tax and benefits further into a basic benefits system. That will go a long way towards redressing some of the injustices that occur, lessening complexities and increasing take-up of benefit. Sadly, despite the social security reviews, that is not the line that the Government have adopted.
This Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses) Bill might more fairly and accurately be subtitled the Tip of the Iceberg Bill. I suspect that over the next 18 months—and perhaps beyond, if the Conservative Government exist longer—there will be a stream of orders, legislation and correcting instruments as the injustices, complexities and anomalies of their system become apparent. The Minister stressed that the Bill deals with technical defects but that does not let the Government off the hook for the general shortcomings in the legislation. The very fact that the Government have had to introduce this measure underlines many of the deficiencies which have been pointed out by hon. Members on both sides of the House in different ways and at different times. The SDP/Liberal alliance has outlined in its reasoned amendment its objections to the Bill and why alliance Members will vote against it.
It is important to consider the effects of the Government's proposals in the context of previous benefit levels. Mothers who are in receipt of family income supplement or supplementary benefits are to receive grant

of £80, which is low. At the moment at least mothers in the low income category can apply to the DHSS for single payments to help with some of the special costs associated with their children.
It is worth setting in context how much slippage has occurred. In 1983, the average single payment made by the DHSS was £60, making with the £25 maternity grant a total grant of £85. In cash and real terms the Government's proposals in the Bill will give mothers on supplementary benefit substantially less than they were receiving both in cash terms and real terms in 1983. That is wholly unjustified. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head. I hope that he will deal with that point.
The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West and, I believe, the Minister have pointed out that girls under 16 will not receive any help unless their parents are in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement. Those girls are a particular at-risk group. The Minister has said, either in the House or elsewhere, that he would again look at that category. I hope that he will tell us more about his thinking along these lines.
The Government propose to cover the costs of "reasonable" funeral expenses. The Minister acknowledged that "reasonable" expenses will not be much less than £350 and in many areas could easily be £550. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) correctly said in art intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that it might be better to give a higher level of flat rate grant which could be claimed back out of the deceased person's estate. There are good reasons for doing that. First, it would target more help on those most in need and, secondly, in human terms, it would overcome much of the distress caused by bureaucratic and administrative machinery at a time of bereavement and, therefore, a time of pressure for family, relatives and loved ones. The Government are wrong in imposing an essentially means-tested benefit, with all its bad connotations, on those in an especially vulnerable position who are suffering from a particular and peculiar distress.
Many issues on the social fund remain outstanding. Some benefits are given at ministerial discretion. In some cases—for example, cold weather payments—one might want a discretionary entitlement. Whatever flat rate uniform system is adopted by any Government, it will never be able adequately to take account of the vagaries of the weather and people's different needs. There is a strong argument to be made in favour of providing for an element of local discretion in granting severe weather payments. If such discretion had been applied this year, it would have overcome many difficulties.
It is nonsense to cash-limit at social fund level and local level many of the entitlements that people will claim. Logically, cash-limiting flies in the face of what should be the open-ended discretion of a local officer. The Minister did not clarify to the satisfaction of the House exactly how cash-limiting and the mechanisms of the social fund will operate. He said that much will depend on continuing discussions on the level of benefits to be set. That is saying the obvious. Clearly, if benefits are generous, some of the difficulties which have been foreseen may not materialise. One can only go by the Government's record. Their record on maternity benefit, which has fallen in real terms since 1983, does not fill one with confidence about the position of claimants when the levels of various forms of benefit which are crucial to the future operation of the revised


social security system are set. As the Minister has made clear, maternity and funeral expenses will remain as grants, and he has commented on the confusion that there has been about that. I accept that on other occasions I have been wrong about some of the details of the legislation. The hon. Member for Birkenhead said that he was wrong on one item, when he questioned the Minister. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead has made clear, in bringing forward the Bill, the Minister is admitting that he, too, has been wrong in the past, as have some of the civil servants who spend their careers working on the social security system. The commonsense implication of that is that if people who are paid to work on the social security system make mistakes, where on earth does that leave the claimant when the new social fund is introduced and the new method of calculating benefit levels is implemented? How on earth are the staff at local level and the claimants to understand it when those involved in the passage of this legislation—including some of us who gave evidence to the social security review—have difficulty with it? What hope has the claimant?

Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman has been very kind to the Government. If they had accepted amendments in Committee to put in the sum of the benefits, we should not have had to consider the Bill today.

Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and entirely endorse what he has said.
We have watched the writhings of successive social security Ministers as they have fought their way through the legislation, and are beginning to see reality at the end of the tunnel in terms of the implications of this legislation. However, perhaps a wee bit more humility would have been a good thing. I have already described this as tip of the iceberg legislation, and we shall see this performance being repeated at the Dispatch Box for several months, and possibly years ahead.
A further implication of the social fund is that its allocation will be divided into two parts, covering grants and loans. Will the loans be topped up each year or will the Government expect it to be largely self-renewing as claimants repay the loans that they received in the past? The Government's position on that matter is not at all clear. We could reach the stage where a substanital proportion of claimants do not have the means to pay back the money. Given that the social security system is supposed to provide a safety net and that, therefore, somebody in the qualifying category is already at safety net level, how on earth can that person be expected to repay to some other source, in this case the Department of Health and Social Security, moneys which would then leave them below that safety net level? If that is the implication of the system, it reflects very badly on the Government's entire approach.
In conclusion—I shall be brief because of the time constraints—some of the issues that the hon. Member for Oldham, West pointed out were highlighted by the social security commission: for example, the generally unsatisfactory nature of so much that remains outstanding. In his opening speech the Minister discussed the much-needed reform of maternity benefit. It is worth bearing in mind that on 6 April the Maternity Alliance is holding an emergency rally in Westminster Hall. The Maternity Alliance points out:

In 1975 it seemed that we had the foundations of a realistic structure of benefits and rights which would give all mothers financial security around childbirth and the opportunity to continue to work without disadvantage. Now the very foundations are being undermined.
The Bill is simply a further confirmation of that rather sad conclusion, and we shall certainly vote against it.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I wish to intervene briefly in the debate to speak on behalf of a group of people who, it is proposed, will receive no benefit or help under the new regulations.
About two weeks ago a young couple from Westlea in Swindon came to my constituency surgery and told me of the death of their only child, at the age of 18 months. The cost of the funeral was £180 and they received £9 from the state, which is the benefit that is available to people in respect of the death of a child. Both of those people are working and, therefore, they would not come within the scope of the proposed system. However, the cost of the funeral will hit them extremely hard, at a time of very great tragedy. There can be no greater tragedy than the death of one's only and very young child.
Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister whether, since we are led to believe that the social fund will not be budgetarily restricted in respect of those grants, there is any possibility that such grants or loans could be advanced to those people for whom the need is clear, but the criteria are not met.
I should also like to comment on the "reasonableness" of funeral expenses. The regulations of 1986 that will govern the whole procedure are littered with the word "reasonable" in relation to funeral expenses. However, there is a risk of monopoly pricing coming into this matter, in relation to firms of undertakers, especially in small country towns. After all, it is unlikely that the bereaved will shop around for a competitive tender for a funeral. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask the Government to define what they mean by the word "reasonable" in terms of the pricing and the various aspects of a funeral for which an undertaker is responsible. At the same time, the Government should bear in mind that the maximum will easily become the minimum, as far as charging and pricing are concerned. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have a moment to refer to those two points.
In conclusion, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who is unfortunately no longer in the Chamber, does not accept the maxim that resources should be directed to where they are most needed. When listening to him, one clearly understands that he is in some kind of crazy auction, in which the price or charge that is mentioned will be doubled and trebled to try to win the auction, which is electoral practice. The hon. Gentleman prefers to spend without regard to what the nation can afford and those who have heard him tonight talk about £200 for the death grant can reasonably expect it to be £400 before the next election, and, no doubt, £600 before the one after that, and to go on increasing, not in line with inflation, but with his own despairing hopes of being elected as the Minister responsible for those matters.
I suspect that the shadow of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is not far away because there has been no bidding-up this evening, but it will come. The consequence of that will be rapid inflation and rising unemployment which will hit hard at those people we are trying to protect today.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I should like to say briefly that the Bill is perhaps a start of many more Bills of this type. In Committee on the Social Security Act 1986, Labour Members consistently pointed out the dangers and the ineffectiveness of the social fund in meeting social problems, and the fact that, because the fund was cash-limited, at the end of the day somebody would lose. I get the feeling that the Government are making a pre-emptive strike by saying, "Yes, we shall fix the amount of the payments for maternity and funeral grants; they will be the first call on the social fund." We need an undertaking from the Minister that the social fund will not be reduced accordingly and that other benefits will not be paid. If that is to be the case, people who are not in receipt of funeral or maternity benefits, but eligible for other benefits or loans will not be eligible for them. Therefore, the problem will he exacerbated for those groups. We require an answer to that question from the Minister.
My second point relates to the maternity grant. It is simply not good enough in 1987 to discuss taking away the right to the maternity grant from mothers with newborn children and to give it instead, in effect, by means-testing, to a limited number of people. In addition, that benefit will be the lowest anywhere in Europe for newborn babies. The social difference between children born in high rise flats in constituencies such as mine to poor parents who are unemployed and likely to he unemployed for a long time and those born in the leafy suburbs will become greater. We are moving towards the meanest form of welfare state that could ever be dreamt of and the ghettoisation of the poor by denying them opportunities from birth.
Hon. Members have spoken about how mothers under the age of 16 will be dealt with under this legislation. The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) misunderstood my point lamentably: I have complete confidence in the social services department in my constituency. It does a good job and meets enormous difficulties. I wish that the hon. Lady would not support a Government who insist on cuts being made in the social services available for my constituents. Her remarks would make more sense if she were prepared to be honest about that.
The Government should consider direct payment to mothers under the age of 16. The problem will not be solved merely by wishing away or by forcing a young woman into social services care. I do not see why young mothers cannot receive that help instead of being persuaded—that is what social services departments will do—to rely on their parents for support. That is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with a small but serious problem for the 1,390 people who were affected by this last year.
When the funeral grant was introduced in 1948 it was a reasonable proportion of the cost of a funeral at that time. It has not been increased anything like in line with inflation or, indeed, with the exorbitant costs that undertakers charge for funerals. There are ways of getting round that problem, such as through municipal funeral undertakers which I would recommend and support strongly. But we must understand the genuine anxiety of elderly people that they cannot be buried with decency. That is a serious problem and prays on the minds of many elderly people.
The Minister tells us that the number of people who will be covered by these arrangements will increase from 4·5 million to 8 million. Are those 8 million predominantly pensioners or people in receipt of housing benefit? Is housing benefit the bench mark for that decision? If they are in receipt of housing benefit, they are more likely to be young people who, fortunately, are not likely to die in the near future. In that case the Minister has grossly exaggerated the number of people who will benefit from his scheme as a whole.
The Social Security Act 1986 was one of the most aggressive pieces of legislation in the past seven years. It has helped to destroy the foundations of the welfare state, which was envisaged to provide decency and security through birth, life and death for all people, irrespective of their ability to pay. Now we see means testing writ large throughout the welfare state.
The Bill is just the start of a series of measures which will be introduced to placate the genuine, united opposition to the Social Security Act, but that will continue during and after the general election, when I hope that we will remove that particularly odious legislation.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am grateful for this brief moment to speak in the debate. I am lamentably ignorant about this subject and I take part because I wish to raise an important matter of constituency interest on behalf of a constituent.
I do not understand how the Labour party can treat the legislation with such seeming contempt when it is absolutely right that we should aim to target these benefits on those who need them most. It is critical that we should give to those in need and help the helpless. We should give them real assistance rather than adopt the scatter-gun approach and give many people a little.
I wish to deal with the maternity grant in particular. It is an important part of our family legislation. I agree with Opposition Members that it has been at a lamentable level for some time. I greatly welcome its increase to £80. The family is an institution which is absolutely critical and essential to our social and moral well-being. The Government, to give them their due, have tried to promote the interests of the family, but a baby involves considerable extra expense. It is proposed that the maternity grant should be raised from £25 to £80 and should be for those on supplementary benefit or on family income supplement. That is an excellent aim, as it will help people on low incomes who have exceptional expenses in a more flexible way. It is about those exceptional expenses that I should like to speak.
I understand that no extra money is payable to handicapped and disabled children until they reach the age of two. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows from our correspondence, I have in my constituency a lady called Mrs. Manning who has a seriously handicapped child of six months. Every Monday she must take the child to a hospital outside our local health authority to receive specialised treatment. The round journey covers 42 miles. Five times a day the child must have specialised therapy from Mrs. Manning. It takes over an hour on each occasion to feed the child because it is unable to suck properly. No attendance allowance is available until the child reaches the age of two, and Mrs. Manning cannot rely indefinitely on the goodwill of her neighbours to look after her other child while she takes the baby to hospital.
I understand that the Department must make a medical judgment on these matters and I completely accept what my hon. Friend said in his letter to me that the child's needs must be substantially in excess of those normally required by a child of the same age and sex. Given any normal criteria, there must be no shadow of doubt that this child is grievously handicapped and at a serious disadvantage, and that the mother is in considerable distress and finds it difficult to provide for her child.
Would it not be possible, given the flexibility that these measures undoubtedly accord in terms of payment, to consider a special type of payment— I know that my hon. Friend is trying to get away from that in some areas— which could cover children who are defined as seriously handicapped, just as they are now defined as not being sufficiently handicapped to warrant additional help?

Ms. Jo Richardson: I have considerable sympathy with the case of Mrs. Manning that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has just raised. Some years ago I had a parallel case and I remember how heart wrenching it was to see the family struggling to care for their child and to cope with the expense. The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks were a little odd, because he said the opposite of what I intend to say. He congratulated the Government on being the party of the family; I say that, if the Government think that they are the party of the family, that is the biggest con that I have ever heard.
Families are essentially about mothers and children who are the most vulnerable people. For mothers pregnancy and preparing to have a child is an expensive business. At some stage it means giving up one's job, rejigging one's life and looking ahead to the needs of the unborn child. Many Conservative Members are fierce defenders of the rights of the unborn child in another context when they oppose the legitimate right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. However, they are less than supportive of the needs of the unborn child, the pregnant woman, the new baby and its mother when it comes to handing out cash support to ensure that that child has a decent start in life.
We have heard much tonight on both sides of the House, but especially from the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), about the plight of the under-16-year-olds. We must remember and emphasise that the Social Security Act 1986 has virtually written off under-16-year-olds altogether. It is all very well to say that the Social Security Act regards under-16-year-olds as the property or responsibility of their parents. I take issue with the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West, who implied that under-16-year-olds, whom I would call young women, are not people to whom an independent allowance could be given should they become pregnant.
I am an absolutely devoted fan of EastEnders. Whatever happens, I will not miss an episode. Michelle is the under-16-year-old girl in the series who became pregnant and who has now had the baby and is working to pay off the debts which her unemployed father accumulated to try to help her out. That shows that people of that age are responsible and can take responsibility. If they can take responsibility, they are entitled to maternity grant instead of being denied it as they are at present.
Many hon. Members have said that the present proposals for the £80 grant is less than what, on average, a woman can claim now, when there is a £25 universal grant as of right. I agree with that and campaigned even under a Labour Government for the grant to be increased, but together with the £60-worth of other supplementary benefits.
It is no good saying that not everyone receives the £60-worth of benefits. Some receive it and others should, as the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West acknowledged. Why make the benefits worth £80? Why not make them worth £100 or £125? In its last manifesto, the Labour party proposed £125. That would at least mean that people would not receive less benefits. However, we are also transferring the payment of maternity allowance to employers and restricting payment to women who are in work and who are paying national insurance contributions up to the point at which they can claim. Even more seriously, we are abolishing the right of pregnant women and their babies to free milk and vitamins. That is absolutely terrible. At least poor families used to have the right to free milk and free vitamins. Now, we have virtually said that that right should go.
In recent years there have been two well publicised estimates of the cost of a new-born baby. One was in the Daily Mirror in 1984 which stated that the cost of caring for a new baby was about £447. The other was in the magazine Parents in 1985 which estimated that £702 was the cost of baby clothes and equipment.
We lag badly behind some other European countries. We hear from Conservative Members how generous the Government are being, but in Belgium the grant for the first child is £395, for the second it is £272 and for the third it is £146. In Denmark, the allowance runs to a maximum of £155 a week. Imagine it! The allowance is financed out of general taxation. In France, the allowance is £70·22 a month. Those benefits are all much more generous than those given in Britain.
I am wearing a badge which was given to me by the Maternity Alliance which, as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said, will be holding a rally in Central Hall on 6 April. The badge says:
It is better to have a baby in Finland.
Why Finland? The answer is that in Finland every pregnant woman, as of right, gets a baby basket with all the clothes that she and the new-born baby will need. The baby basket converts into a carry-cot. That is a present given by the Government of Finland to pregnant women. All that happens in Britain— I am informed by my secretary who has just had a baby—is that a pregnant woman is given one disposable nappy the first time that she goes to the hospital. How mean can we get? We should deal much more generously with pregnant women and babies because they are so important to us.
The maternity emergency campaign will attract an awful lot of support from pregnant women and women who have been pregnant or who may become pregnant. I am told by the Greenwich branch of the maternity emergency campaign that there are now more than 71,000 women in that borough under 50 years old, some of whom will be affected by this Bill. Some 4,800 of them are unemployed and of childbearing age.
This is a miserable little Bill. We shall oppose it with all the might that we can muster, and we shall do our best,


when the remaining stages are taken, to amend it. In the meantime, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): This debate has rightly concentrated not on the technical error in the regulation-making powers but on the policy which was known and clearly stated as long ago as the publication of the White Paper and widely debated during the passage of the main Bill. We have concentrated on particular aspects of that policy and I shall answer the points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) commended Finland because it hands out a basket with baby clothes. Most people would wish to choose and buy their own baby clothes. However, comparison with Europe is misleading. Five European countries make no maternity grant whatsoever. Furthermore, it is misleading to add the £25 of the present grant to the £60 which a small minority of those on supplementary benefit receive from single payments as only between one quarter and one fifth of new mothers receive that £60. Therefore, it is not a fair comparison.
I have a few minutes to answer the points made in the debate. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) should be so conservative as to hark hack to, and thoroughly misunderstand, the national insurance contributions principle. The principle, as he should appreciate, is not the same as a private insurance system. It is a pay-as-you-go system and it raises £21·5 billion worth of contributions to pay £24 billion worth of benefits. He told the House yet again that if Labour came to power there would be more taxes and more national insurance contributions for less well-targeted benefits.
My answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on whether the social fund budget would run out is that it will not. Funeral and maternity payments will not be constrained by the budgets. They are entitlements to those who are within the passported groups that we have been discussing. The money to he given to them will not eat into the funds. I do not have time to explain that more fully, but I wish to make it clear that there will be a standing balance.
If the family in the tragic circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) outlined is a low-income family in work, it is capable of falling within the passported groups for the first time. We are widening eligibility from people on supplementary benefit to include people on family income supplement, family credit—I do not know whether the family that my hon. Friend mentioned falls into that category—and housing benefit.
It must be recognised that maternity and funeral payments are, in the present system, long out of date. That problem is being tackled and money is being targeted on people in real need. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put That the Bill be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 169.

Division No. 82
7 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Tom


Alexander, Richard
Aspinwall, Jack


Amess, David
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)





Baldry, Tony
Hanley, Jeremy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Haselhurst, Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Hayes, J.


Bendall, Vivian
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Benyon, William
Henderson, Barry


Bevan, David Gilroy
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hill, James


Blackburn, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Body, Sir Richard
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Irving, Charles


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Jackson, Robert


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Jessel, Toby


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Bright, Graham
Key, Robert


Brinton, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Knowles, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Lang, Ian


Browne, John
Latham, Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Lawler, Geoffrey


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lawrence, Ivan


Buck, Sir Antony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Budgen, Nick
Lester, Jim


Bulmer, Esmond
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Butterfill, John
Lightbown, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lilley, Peter


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Carttiss, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Lord, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lyell, Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Chope, Christopher
Macfarlane, Neil


Churchill, W. S.
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Maclean, David John


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clegg, Sir Walter
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Cockeram, Eric
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Coombs, Simon
McQuarrie, Albert


Cope, John
Madel, David


Corrie, John
Major, John


Couchman, James
Malins, Humfrey


Cranborne, Viscount
Malone, Gerald


Crouch, David
Maples, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Marland, Paul


Dickens, Geoffrey
Marlow, Antony


Dicks, Terry
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Dover, Den
Mates, Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Mather, Sir Carol


Dykes, Hugh
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Evennett, David
Mellor, David


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Merchant, Piers


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Farr, Sir John
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Favell, Anthony
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Miscampbell, Norman


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Forman, Nigel
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mudd, David


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Murphy, Christopher


Gale, Roger
Neale, Gerrard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nelson, Anthony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Neubert, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Newton, Tony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Nicholls, Patrick


Grant, Sir Anthony
Norris, Steven


Greenway, Harry
Onslow, Cranley


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Oppenheim, Phillip


Grylls, Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Osborn, Sir John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ottaway, Richard






Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Pawsey, James
Stokes, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Sumberg, David


Pollock, Alexander
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Portillo, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Powley, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Terlezki, Stefan


Price, Sir David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rathbone, Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tracey, Richard


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Trotter, Neville


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Viggers, Peter


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rowe, Andrew
Walden, George


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Ryder, Richard
Wall, Sir Patrick


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walters, Dennis


Sayeed, Jonathan
Ward, John


Scott, Nicholas
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Watson, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watts, John


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Silvester, Fred
Wheeler, John


Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Woodcock, Michael


Spencer, Derek
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Squire, Robin



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Mr. Tony Durant and


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Francis Maude.


Stern, Michael





NOES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bruce, Malcolm


Alton, David
Buchan, Norman


Anderson, Donald
Caborn, Richard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ian


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Canavan, Dennis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Thomas


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clay, Robert


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clelland, David Gordon


Bermingham, Gerald
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bidwell, Sydney
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Blair, Anthony
Cohen, Harry


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Coleman, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Conlan, Bernard


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Corbett, Robin


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Corbyn, Jeremy





Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Marek, Dr John


Craigen, J. M.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Crowther, Stan
Martin, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dalyell, Tarn
Maxton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meacher, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Michie, William


Dixon, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dormand, Jack
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Douglas, Dick
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Nellist, David


Eastham, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
O'Brien, William


Fatchett, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Park, George


Fisher, Mark
Parry, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pavitt, Laurie


Forrester, John
Pendry, Tom


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Prescott, John


George, Bruce
Radice, Giles


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Randall, Stuart


Godman, Dr Norman
Raynsford, Nick


Golding, Mrs Llin
Redmond, Martin


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Ms Jo


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rooker, J. W.


Heffer, Eric S.
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Home Robertson, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Howells, Geraint
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hoyle, Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hume, John
Stott, Roger


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Straw, Jack


John, Brynmor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Kennedy, Charles
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Kirkwood, Archy
Tinn, James


Lamond, James
Wallace, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Leighton, Ronald
Wareing, Robert


Litherland, Robert
Weetch, Ken


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Welsh, Michael


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
White, James


Loyden, Edward
Wigley, Dafydd


McCartney, Hugh
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Winnick, David


McKay, Allen (Penistone)



MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tellers for the Noes:


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Frank Haynes and


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. John McWilliam.


McTaggart, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Ryder.]

Committee tomorrow.

British Railways (Stansted) Bill (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has now completed most of its stages in the House of Commons and it has had a very long and interrupted career. The purposes of the Bill are very simple. It is intended to anticipate the opening of the new airport at Stansted and to provide passengers with a rail link that will meet their requirements.
Much of the discussion about the Bill during its stages on the Floor of the House has revolved around the relationship between what is happening at Stansted and what is happening at Manchester.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I hesitate to interrupt a persuasive speech. As the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) appreciates, hon. Members must take the opportunities available to them to argue the interests of their communities. The hon. Gentleman knows why I and my hon. Friends are here in this debate. I hope he will agree that our concern for equality of treatment is wholly legitimate and that he will put that point to the Minister. I hope equally that the Minister will take the point when he replies.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all his representations will be heard, as always, with great care. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in 1984, I moved the Second Reading of the Bill to provide precisely the same powers for Manchester as are being sought now for Stansted. Hon. Members will know that these Bills do not make clear any intention to build anything. In such Bills, the promoter seeks to have powers available should such a building he required. I am afraid that I cannot satisfy the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) of my competence to answer on behalf of the British Railways Board or the Government. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will have something to say about that later. Manchester has these powers and has had them for more than two years.
Another of the problems that surrounds the Bill is the fact that, while Stansted is still in the planning stage, some people are concerned about its effect on other commuter rail links. 1 want to remind the House about the powers that we are seeking in the Bill.
Clause 5 deals with Work No. 1. That is the construction of a new railway of about 6,000m in length which will constitute a spur from the London-Cambridge railway. Work No. 2 is a railway of some 770 m in length which will comprise a connection bwtween Work No. 1 and the London-Cambridge line. The other work set out in clause 5 is completely dependent upon those two major works.
I hope that I can assure hon. Members that when the building is completed and the spur line is added to the main line to the airport, far from making services worse, the work should substantially improve them.
I want to consider the point raised by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. On Second Reading, I said

that while it was proper for hon. Members to raise constituency concerns in any debate in connection with British Rail Bills—and you have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, always allowed these debates to run very wide because a:11 British Rail matters may be discussed—it would be a matter of counting apples with pears if we were to delay the Stansted rail link simply because final decisions had not been taken about Manchester. It will not be in anyone's interests to block the British Railways (Stansted) Bill and to prevent its passage. That would only mean that British Rail will be unable to meet its obligations when the, airport is finally approved. Indeed, that may endanger the jobs of those involved in the construction.
I hope that the House will grant the Bill a Third Reading, recognising, as I said at the beginning, that it has been thoroughly scrutinised. There are obviously further stages in which it will be further considered, but I hope tonight that the House will feel that the Bill can move to its next stage and that it will be granted a Third Reading.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I will be brief. The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has made the point about Stansted. The Opposition have always been anxious that the Stansted project should come to fruition because the project will create jobs during the construction of the link as well as on the railways once the link is completed.
The House will understand why my hon. Friends and I have believed that it was worthwhile and necessary to delay the progress of this Bill in view of the connection that we drew between the Stansted rail link and the Manchester rail link. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has said, we feel that there has not always been comparable treatment between those two rail links. That debate has gone on for some time and is well understood.
If the Minister can assure the House that within the Department of Transport the progress of the proposals put forward by the authorities in Manchester for the Manchester link will be dealt with us as speedily and efficiency as was, and will be the case, for Stansted. my hon. Friends and I will be happy to support the Third Reading of the Bill tonight.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: The Bill should receive its Third Reading so that this matter can progress. I know of no sizeable body of opinion in my constituency that is concerned about the precise mechanics of the proposed new spur line. I imagine that those matters have been dealt with under the scrutiny to which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) referred. There is an overall benefit to be gained by Stansted airport, in its expanded form, being equipped with an efficient rail link, as this will have benefits in helping to alleviate pressure on roads and on possible urbanisation of the area.
However, I have one point to make. There is a fear, which has been underlined by recent experience on the railways, that it is difficult to be confident that the demand on commuter services, plus the demand for airport services, can be accommodated safely and adequately to provide a high standard all round. British Rail has assured me that there will not be a practical problem in that respect. Should pressures build up over the next four years


that would throw doubt on that assumption, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister would be sympathetic to any request from British Rail for further alleviation of the situation.
My remaining concern is that, in providing a good service to the airport, nothing should happen to undermine the service to my constituents who daily come to the capital, regardless of the airport, and whose quality of service has been questionable over many years. That apart, I welcome the Third Reading.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It may be helpful if I intervene to give the House the Government's view of the Bill. The Government have considered the contents of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the British Railways Board. My Department has no outstanding points on the Bill.
As I have said before, the White Paper on airports made it clear that we would be pleased to approve a rail link to Stansted airport if there was a commercial case for it. British Rail has proved that there is, and we have given approval. British Rail now needs powers to build the link. Work will need to begin by the end of the year, so that it will be ready by 1991, when the new terminal at Stansted is due to come into operation.
The Government's position on Manchester is clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are anxious to meet the other interested parties as soon as they have worked out proposals for our consideration. Before that, there is little point in a meeting. Naturally, I cannot give a prior commitment to the link until we have had an opportunity to study the case supported by a grant application.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), on behalf not only of himself but of other hon. Members with like

interests in the Manchester area, asked me whether the proposals, when received by the Department, would be dealt with expeditiously. I can give him that assurance, and it is backed up by the fact that I am told that I have the record for the fastest yet handling of British Rail investment applications through the Department. While I cannot undertake exactly how long this will take, I can give him the assurance that the matter will be dealt with as expeditiously as I reasonably and possibly can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) asked about services to his constituents. I have been to Essex today to look at the Chelmsford station and some of the connecting stations. We all have much sympathy both with the commuters held up by the problems with the fall of overhead cables, which British Rail is handling today, and with British Rail staff who are doing their best, working much of the night to deal with the problem.
I assure my hon. Friend that, should British Rail find that there are capacity problems and come to us with alternative proposals, we shall consider them carefully. British Rail has already assessed that there may be the possibility of switching the London terminus for Stansted to a London station other than Liverpool street, should the build up of traffic be such as to bring about the problem that my hon. Friend fears. I hope that on that basis he may feel some reassurance.
It is clear that, if the Bill did not proceed, that would have a substantial effect on the rate of traffic in my hon. Friend's constituency, which he would not find attractive. I hope that all I have been able to say has reassured both my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden and those hon. Members representing Manchester and that they will feel able to take the Government's view and not object to the proceeding of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Education (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I beg to move,
That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.
The main purpose of the draft order is to implement the Government's decision to transfer responsibility for the education of mentally handicapped children in Northern Ireland from the Department of Health and Social Services to the Department of Education. A consultative document was widely distributed to statutory and voluntary bodies in both the health and personal social services and education sectors, to trade unions, political parties, parents' groups and individuals who had shown an interest in the subject. The document was also referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly for consideration.
Having given careful consideration to the responses, the Government agreed with the substantial body of opinion, including that of the Assembly, that mentally handicapped children should be given the statutory right to education. The Government concluded that the most appropriate way of meeting the needs of these children was to bring them into the statutory education system. It is intended that the transfer of the responsibility will take effect from 1 April this year.
The most immediate and significant change will be that from that date mentally handicapped children will no longer be determined to be unsuitable for education in schools. Instead, they will be treated as pupils with special educational needs and will be entitled to receive full-time education. This order will bring the law on special education in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The provision of health and social services for the mentally handicapped. will remain the responsibility of the DHSS and the health and social services boards.
I shall now deal with the provision of the draft order concerning the transfer of responsibility. Article 3 provides for the repeal of those parts of the Education and Library (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the principal order, which requires the education and library boards to determine mentally handicapped children as unsuitable for education at school, and for the repeal of the remaining parts of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961, under which care and supervision is presently provided for such children. It also makes consequential amendments to article 133(2) of the 1980 order, which excludes mentally handicapped children from the powers and duties imposed by that order.
Schedule 1 contains transitional provisions relating to the children and the transfer of staff and property. Paragraph 2 provides that children who hitherto have been determined as unsuitable for education at school will be regarded as having special educational needs which require education and library boards to determine the special educational provisions that should be made for them. It was originally proposed that boards should be allowed a period of 12 months from the date of the transfer to prepare the formal record of special educational provisions to be made to meet the needs of each of these children. However, during the consultation period on the draft order, representations were received that this would

not allow sufficient time for boards to carry out this taslk for all the children concerned. The Government accept that the transfer of responsibility will mean an increased workload for the special education departments of boards, so I have decided to respond to the representations by increasing the period from 12 months to two years.
Paragraph 3 of the schedule provides for the transfer of staff from the employment of health and social services boards to the employment of education and library boards. The staff involved are those employed wholly or mainly with mentally handicapped children and includes teachers, child care and ancillary staff. It is the Government's intention that they shall be transferred on terms and conditions of employment not less favourable than those enjoyed prior to the transfer and, in the unlikely event that someone should be worse off after the transfer, that compensation shall be paid. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that where Government impose such a change on staff they should be adequately protected.
The transfer of property, including school buildings and equipment, to the ownership of education and library boards is provided for in paragraph 4. Not all of the school buildings will be transferring permanently because some are on hospital sites and others are not considered suitable for long-term use as schools. In those cases, the premises will continue to be used as a school until alternative accommodation is provided by education and library boards.
Paragraph 5 of the schedule will enable the existing special care schools to be recognised as controlled special schools with effect from 1 April, without education and library boards having to follow all the procedures required for school development proposals by article 14 of the principal order.
The Government have always recognised that the education service would require additional finance to take on that responsibility. I have already made some £1·7 million available to the education and library boards in the current financial year. That has enabled them to place an order for 50 new purpose-built buses, to provide temporary classrooms, to do other minor works immediately at some schools to facilitate the separation of children and adults and to reduce class size and it has enabled them to place orders for additional equipment and teaching resources to enhance the provisions available to the schools.
For 1987–88, provision has been made for additional recurrent funds of almost £3 million. That will enable the schools to employ additional teaching and other staff and for home tuition to be provided for children who are unable to attend school. It has also enabled the education and library boards to employ additional administrative and professional staff and generally to enhance the provisions made for the children.
Provision has also been made for a new capital programme that will allow the education and library boards to make a start on replacing or improving the existing buildings. A total of £2 million has been provided for 1987–88.
The remaining provisions of the order make a number of miscellaneous changes to the 1986 order which do not arise from the transfer of responsibility for mentally handicapped children but which are also important. Article 4 is concerned with proposals for the establishment, amalgamation or closure of schools and places a


duty on the education and library boards or other body making the proposals to implement it if it has been approved by my Department. The approved proposal can be modified subsequently by my Department in response to a request by the board or other body.
Article 5 gives my Department specific power to make regulations regarding the operation of schools and sets out the provisions that may be included in such regulations.
Article 6 gives my Department powers to prescribe in regulations requirements which call for certain arrangements regarding the pupils for whom provision is to be made in special schools to be subject to my Department's approval. There is similar provision in the Education Act 1981.
The purpose of article 7 is to require that school registers should contain information about all the pupils in a school, not just those of compulsory school age as at present.
Article 8 enables my Department to make regulations concerning the eligibility of persons to be employed as teachers. It also re-enacts the existing provision relating to the making of regulations about the terms and conditions of the employment of teachers.
Article 9 gives my Department similar powers in regard to making regulations about the employment of non-teaching staff.
Article 10 removes the existing requirement that education and library boards should give caretakers and groundsmen six month's notice to recover possession of their residences on termination of their employment.
Article 11 enables an education and library board to permit other persons to use the board's spare computer capacity on agreed terms. That provision follows similar provision to district councils in Northern Ireland under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.
Article 12 removes the requirement on my Department to produce an annual report. My Department will, of course, continue to produce occasional reports on issues of particular interest and to publish its regular statistical bulletins.
The purpose of Article 13 is to remove the requirement that my Department should make regulations governing its powers to pay grants to certain voluntary schools in respect of the provision of milk, meals and other refreshments. The grants will continue to be paid using the existing powers relating to the payment of grant to voluntary schools rather than the present regulations.
Article 14 replaces
managers of a grant-aided school
with, "Boards of Governors" in the provision in the principal order relating to the production of documents in evidence in legal proceedings.
Article 15 will enable an education and library board to seek a direction from the Department where the naming of a school selected by a parent in a school attendance order would be in conflict with the board's policy.
Article 16 and schedule 2 repeal provisions that are spent or have become unnecessary with the passage of time or because of other provisons in the order.
Articles 4 to 9 and 12 are in line with corresponding education law in Britain.
If hon. Members wish to raise any points, I shall do my best to reply at the end of the debate, subject to the leave of the House.
The order is concerned with a major step forward in the provision of education for a small but very important group of our children, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I intervene in the debate principally for one reason, namely, the acute anxiety that is evidently still felt in Northern Ireland among members of the staff who will be transferred under these arrangements to the employment of the education and library boards. In that light, no doubt like other hon. Members, I have studied carefully the provisions of schedule 1 and I hope that it will be possible before the end of the debate for the Minister to give a form of assurance that will go far to removing the anxieties currently felt by those affected.
The provisions for the transfer of staff in paragraph 3 of the schedule are of two sorts. First, there is the scheme governing the transfer and then there are the regulations governing the compensation, where compensation falls to be paid. Over the regulations there will be some, although limited, future control because, of course, the reference in paragraph 9 to "negative resolution", as the aficionados of this type of legislation are well aware, does not mean what it says. Nevertheless, there is a convention whereby the Government, upon the request of the Opposition, provide time for the consideration of regulations that would otherwise be subject to what we call a prayer. Therefore, we are not entirely saying goodbye to the provisions that will be made for compensation. However, unless I am mistaken, there is no such future look that we are going to get at the provisions governed by the making of a scheme. That is why it is appropriate that the Minister should be able, on this occasion, before we take leave of the order, to give some assurances.
Paragraph 3 (3) states:
as long as a transferred officer is engaged in duties reasonably comparable to those in which he was engaged immediately before 1st April 1987, the scale of his . remuneration; and the other terms and conditions of his employment
must be
taken as a whole not less favourable".
That seems to be all right so far as it goes. However, many of those employed under the health boards in the education— it is education— of the mentally handicapped have been looking forward to a career in that service and they have been trained to a standard fully equal to that of their colleagues in the ordinary education service though for a specialised purpose. It is far from clear from what has been said by the Minister so far or from a study of the terms of the schedule that those persons may not find themselves at a disadvantage in future competitive appointments compared with those who have come up through the odinary channels of the education service.
The Minister ought to be prepared to give to the House this evening some reassurance that the career prospects— I apologise if I am not making the proposition in precisely and exactly the correct terms, but that is a general term and I hope it is well understood— of those who will be transferred will not be less favourable than they had reason to expect under their former conditions of employment. That is a request which I hope the Minister


will be able to discharge because I have satisfied myself that the anxiety which is felt is widespread and very real and is something with which we ought to deal.
That having been said, I will not pass up the opportunity of expressing my anxiety about the act of policy which, through this order, is being transferred or imitated or duplicated in Northern Ireland from Great Britain.
It was an attractive, indeed a noble, proposition that the education of the mentally handicapped was education and a real part of education and should be so regarded, and that those who suffered from mental handicap should be educated within the same educational service as their more fortunate contemporaries. That was a very natural and attractive proposition, and legislation has been framed now on both sides of the Irish sea to give effect to it. As so often, it is our experience in Northern Ireland, since we come late to ditto-ing legislation on the mainland, that when people are already beginning to have doubts as to the soundness of what has happened on the mainland, we in Northern Ireland are still in the full flush of enthusiasm. The classic example of that was that we caught up with the bright new idea of new towns just when new towns were going out of fashion in Great Britain, with disastrous consequences in a place called Craigavon; but I will not enter into that.

Mr. John Hume: We told them so in advance.

Mr. Powell: Yes, they were told so. Very often these mistakes are made by Governments which have been told so; but the power of fashion in its heyday is almost irresistible. There is an element of fashion in play in what we are doing here. We must not be surprised if in years to come those parents and others who have welcomed the prospect of mentally handicapped children having their special educational needs dealt with within the education service experience a degree of disappointment.
There are two problems. The first is that those with special educational needs—and I noted carefully what the Minister said about the need for additional resources— are going to be competing for attention with their more fortunate contemporaries. This is in the nature of things. even in large centres of population, and will be especially so in the rural areas where, of necessity, educational establishments are fairly small. We are placing those with special educational needs in a setting in which they will be competing for attention and for resources with those who do not have special educational needs. It is far from certain that in that competition they will come off best or gain the valuation of their special needs that they might have looked forward to under the old regime.
The second problem is that mental handicap brings with it very special requirements on the part of those who teach and train and calls for special endowments on the part of the persons who are selected—it is usually self-selected—for that task. I remember from 25 years ago as Minister of Health, when the Ministry of Health was responsible here in England and Wales, how immensely struck I was by the capabilities, hopefulness and— the word is unavoidable—dedication of those in the Health Service who were dealing with the mentally handicapped.
One fears that with the merging of the provision for those special needs into the general education service something of that special enthusiasm and dedication will inevitably he lost. This is not a moment perhaps for these

forebodings to cloud our minds but I could not leave the opportunity without expressing them. I know that I am not alone in entertaining them, amongst those who have dedicated themselves especially to interest in the mentally handicapped. In saying that I have in mind especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) who, as is generally known in Northern Ireland, long before he became a politician and a Member of Parliament was closely involved in the care of the mentally handicapped in his own area.
There are two parts to this order which have no necessary connection with one another. I have been dealing with that part which concerns the mentally handicapped; but the greater part of the order, in terms of volume if not necessarily of importance, is concerned with certain amendments to the principal legislation, the order of 1986. Over these the Minister glided with a well-tuned brief, indicating the contents of each of the paragraphs and articles as he touched upon them. One or two of them deserve to be looked at more carefully.
In doing so one is constantly reminded — and I apologise if I return to a theme which is perhaps not entirely unfamiliar to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since you seem to be the one unchanging feature in the scene of Northern Ireland legislation by Order in Council — that if these amendments were being made by a Bill, as they would be in Great Britain. we would be attending to what is happening in a very different way and very much more specifically and jealously than we are able to do in the ambit of this debate on the order.
I was struck by article 5, the regulations which can be made "As to carrying on of grant-aided schools". My eye fell upon paragraph 17A(2)(d) dealing with regulations
with respect to the curriculum and time-table to be followed in such schools";
and
enabling the Department to prohibit the use in such schools of any book or other teaching material of which the Department does not approve
It may be that coming events are casting their shadow before, but there are those of us who are disturbed at what we hear as to the intention in England and Wales that the Secretary of State for Education and a Government Department shall lay down in precise detail the contents of the curriculum and the timetable of the schools— what has commonly, though not necessarily accurately, come to be regarded as the French method.
If that is what lies behind these two subparagraphs of I 7A(2), then I have to say that I fear the worst from this new development in education policy. I really do fear the consequences of an education department taking upon itself by regulation the laying down of the curriculum and the timetable for all the schools under its control. While I can see the grounds on which a Department might want to prohibit the use in schools of a particular book— indeed I have seen books of which one could wish to see the use prohibited— I am far from sure that a prohibition issuing from a central Department is the right way to achieve that desirable end. I note with dismay—and perhaps some of these words will reach the Province to which this order applies— that provision is being made under this article for regulations which will enable the Department to lay down curriculum and timetable arid to prohibit books or teaching material in the grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland. I hope the Minister will be able to say something about that.
I pass over article 8
Regulations as to employment of teachers
with one observation only because I think that there is either an error or a misprint. It appears in new article 70(2)(e)
prohibiting or restricting the employment or further employment of teachers on medical grounds, in cases of misconduct and on educational grounds.
My submission—perhaps it is not too late for a verbal correction, if that is all that is necessary—is that the word "and" in the last phrase should be "or". Otherwise it will only be possible to prohibit or restrict the employment of teachers if medical grounds, misconduct and educational grounds are all available in the same case. No doubt the Minister will have that looked at.
I come to something rather more disturbing in article 10. There has not yet been an opportunity for a representative of Her Majesty's Opposition to intervene in the debate, but I cannot think that they will have acquiesced with equanimity in the removal of the safeguard of a six months' notice-to-quit from caretakers, groundsmen and so on, while retaining that protection for teachers—an instance of class discrimination which I should not have thought would attract the support of the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench. There are no Opposition occupants of any other Benches at the moment.
It may be awkward to have a caretaker or a groundsman working out the six months' notice if one wants to get hold of the premises in which he is residing, but I cannot see that the same difficulty does not largely apply to a teacher who is occupying a similar residence. Nor does it seem to me that it will be easier for a groundsman or a caretaker to find other accommodation than it would be for a teacher to find other accommodation. Is the introduction of that discrimination really justified? And is it worth withdrawing this protection from caretakers, groundsmen and so on for the convenience of securing a summary eviction?
I say that with the more warmth because I am at the moment concerned with the fate of a lady who was the warden of a youth hostel in my constituency who, for health reasons, had to relinquish that post and has still not been satisfactorily rehoused after a lapse of many months. We are talking about real personal problems as we slide over the amending articles of the order. So to that article, too, I hope that the Minister will give attention when he replies.

Mr. John Hume: I welcome the order because it is, in the words of the Minister, a major step forward, even though it is long overdue. When I first entered public life in Northern Ireland in the old Stormont Parliament in 1969 one of the first issues that I raised was the resentment felt that the mentally handicapped were being educated not within the education system but within the Health Service, which placed upon them a sort of official stigma that they were uneducable. I am glad that, 18 years later, it has finally been accepted that they should be entitled to be educated in exactly the same system as all other children and therefore be subject to the same advantages, such as books and transport, which they have been denied up to now.
In addition, I rise to echo what the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said about the anxiety that exists among the staff of the special care service in Northern Ireland that some of them may lose out because of the change. I have spoken privately to the Minister about this and I hope that he will clarify the order to ensure that no members of the special care service should lose from the changeover. I am referring specifically to those who were trained in Muckamore. It has been suggested that those who were would in some way lose recognition of years of service because of the changeover. That would be a complete injustice. If that is so, it must be an oversight, not deliberate, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that.
That is all that I have to say on the subject, other than to reiterate my welcome for the order, which I believe will receive a widespread welcome within Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Alton: I want to echo some of the remarks that have already been made tonight. Not long after the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) was fighting his battle in Stormont, I found myself as a member of the Liverpool city council's education committee serving on the sub-committee which dealt with children with special needs. During the years that I served on that sub-committee I saw the need to integrate the education service with the special provision for those with handicaps and special needs. Indeed, when I went on to teach for six years, I worked with children with handicaps and maladjustments.
The analogy made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) between the abominations of new towns and overspill areas and the imposition of what were purely fashionable ideas was a fair point to make, but I suspect that rather more thought has gone into this. The Education Act 1981 has proved to be successful in Great Britain, and some of the misgivings which he has suggested tonight are probably without foundation. However, I support what he said about the concern that the order gives about transitional arrangements. It would be strange if there were not such concerns at a time when change is taking place.
I also strongly support what the right hon. Gentleman said about the imposition of a curriculum by any centralised authority, whether it be by Government or by local education authorities. There is much to be said for schools having a fair amount of control over what goes on in their establishments. That is why it is important that the governing bodies of schools and parents should be better involved and the 1985 legislation went some way to ensuring that in Great Britain.
Will the Minister answer some specific questions? To what extent is the order merely a book transition, moving responsibility from the health authorities to the education authorities? How many more children will be integrated into normal state schools rather than being educated in separate institutions? Will the Minister give the House some figures tonight for the number of children currently in special education in Northern Ireland? Does he think that the £3 million which is being made available will be enough, and will the time between now and 1 April be sufficient for the order to be implemented successfully?
Article 5 has already been referred to. According to the noble Lord Lyell, who spoke for the Government in the other place, those prohibition powers have never been


invoked in the past 10 years. If that is the case, should not the Government be considering whether they might be removed altogether?
Finally, I want simply to make an observation. Integration is a word which comes up when talking about children with special needs. It is significant that handicapped and maladjusted children, Catholic and Protestant, are usually educated together. Surely we can learn something from that. If special education can be integrated, surely there is much to be said for moving away from the old sectarian system of education in Northern Ireland. If normal schools can learn from the education of people with special needs, perhaps the sectarian barriers can be broken down.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I welcome to our debates on Northern Ireland the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I think that it is the first time that he has addressed the House as the spokesman for the alliance on Northern Ireland matters. He will find that we have graceful debates at a high level, and that those who participate in them, even though their numbers might be few, have a great deal of experience. I congratulate the Minister on the felicitous way in which he presented the order.
We welcome the order. As the Minister said, it removes the duty of an education and library board to determine whether children are unsuitable for education at school. The second thrust of the order will remove the powers of a health and social services board to provide supervision and training for children requiring special care. The upshot of this is that the responsibility for the education of mentally handicapped children in Northern Ireland is removed from the Department of Health and Social Security to the Department of Education. That means that mentally handicapped children will no longer be considered unsuitable for school and that the law on special education in Northern Ireland will be brought into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill spoke about integration. We wholeheartedly support the principles of integration. I noted with interest the points made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). He said that there were now doubts on the mainland about the fact that in the past there had been imitation and duplication of legislation that affected Northern Ireland after it had affected the mainland. It has taken a long time to establish the principles of integration in education on the mainland. Up to now the resources and the political will to put the principles effectively into practice have not existed. I may come hack to that point later.
All the evidence available to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) in his capacity as shadow Secretary of State for Education suggests that the aims of education for children and young people with disabilities and with significant difficulties are the same as those for all children and young people. In a recent speech to the annual conference of the National Bureau for Handicapped Students my hon. Friend said:
It follows that handicapped and non handicapped pupils ought to be educated in a common setting as far as is possible. The integration of the whole community is, I believe, not only in the best interests of the handicapped. It is also in the best interests of all.
It has taken us a long time properly to establish the principles of integration. I can well understand the

difficulties in attitudes, in the complexities of bureaucracy and of events not keeping pace with the times. On the mainland at least local education authorities have been rate-capped, penalised and, some might say, victimised and have not been able to relate the special needs of handicapped and disabled children to the ability of the education authorities to meet them. I hope that that point is not too semantic or lost on the House, but it is true nevertheless.
In the case of Northern Ireland, I am grateful to the Minister for telling us that an additional £3 million in resources will be made available over a three-year period and that there is to be a capital programme to enable education and library boards to make a start on replacing or improving existing buildings. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill spoke about the £3 million and put a question to the Minister about it.
The question is often asked, "How long is a piece of string?" The questions that we ask are: "Is the £3 million of additional resources, however welcome, enough? On what criteria has the figure been reached? Has it been reached on the basis of need and the requirement of mentally handicapped children? Will the capital programme be sufficient?" Perhaps only people with specialist knowledge of the subject will be able to answer those questions, but if the Minister has the answers no doubt he will wish to share them with the House. We all welcome capital programmes in Northern Ireland, and none is more welcome than a programme which deals with the needs of mentally handicapped children who require patience, time, skill and attention to make up for their disabilities—if anything can make up for them.
Integration into normal schools does not arise from the order. Initially, mentally handicapped children covered by the order will continue to be educated in separate schools. As I understand it, the principle of integration applies to children with special education needs being educated in ordinary schools for which resources have always been available. Integration in Northern Ireland to the tune of about 40 per cent. was achieved even before the principle was written into law. Some distinction appears to be drawn between children with special educational needs and those who are mentally handicapped, although in practice they may amount to the same thing. The Warnock report represented a substantial shift in attitudes towards special education on the mainland. Perhaps the committee's most important conclusion was that up to one in five children would require some form of special education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North said, the observation that handicap was not confined to a small minority but was a much wider phenomenon gave an additional and decisive impetus to the movement towards integration.
The Minister told the House that the order corresponds to the provisions on the mainland. The Education Act 1981 was the legislative expression of that movement towards integration. Article 6 of the order is a direct take from section 12 of the Education Act 1981 which deals with regulations about special schools. The order brings the legislation about the education of mentally handicapped children into line with that on the mainland.
My next point will be familiar to the House and to those who follow our debates— including the participants. Some Opposition Members believe in an Ireland united by consent and democracy and by peaceful means. We often make the point that, until that happens, it is as well for


Northern Ireland to have, as far as possible and within the context of its own regional distinctiveness, legislation equivalent to that on the mainland. For that reason we welcome the order.
A wide spectrum of statutory and voluntary bodies in health and personal social services and education as well as trade unions, political parties, parents groups and individuals were consulted about the terms of the order. The order might be negatived, but it cannot be altered. However, as a result of representations, a change has been made in schedule 1, paragraph 2(3). The House will welcome even that slight change.
We regret that, whilst the order was at one time referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly, that Assembly no longer exists. That is not the fault of the Government, still less the fault of the Opposition, but it is a matter for regret that in Northern Ireland there is no elected body able to make its own contribution to local democracy. The Opposition are committed to looking at all structures of local government, and when we return to office we will take account of the views of all those who wish to make submissions. We will look at devolution, administrative or otherwise, so that in one constitutional form or another the people of Northern Ireland might have restored to them a measure of local democracy and a sense of self government of which they are now deprived.
We are committed to altering the procedures of the House so that orders of the sort that we are now debating would become Bills or would certainly be subjected to study in Committee and altered, and the views of elected representatives taken into account.
I thank the right hon. Member for South Down for his reference to article 10 which deals with recovery of possession of residences provided for caretakers and groundsmen. The National Union of Public Employees will welcome his reference to that and to the fact that six months' notice could be given to the occupants. That is a matter of some concern to us. I surmise that there may be differences in the role of a caretaker as opposed to that of a teacher. Nevertheless, we look upon this matter with some anxiety. We shall look to the Minister for some reassurance on that point and on the security of tenure of caretakers, groundsmen and so on.
I trust that the House has held its breath sufficiently long to listen to my short speech on the order. We commend it to the House. With the serried ranks behind me, I assure the Minister that we shall not oppose it.

Dr. Mawhinney: I thank the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), for Liverpool. Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Foyle (Mr. Hume) for the welcome that they have given to the order. Although the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) expressed some reservations about it, I was encouraged that he did not voice any opposition to it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that, although I have no responsibility for Craigavon—I make no comment about it—I am proud to represent a successful new town in Peterborough. The Government's legislation in that regard has not been negative.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the legitimate and important question whether the commitment that I have given the House in respect of the terms of transfer for

individual people—that there should be no disadvantage to them—could be extended to apply to career prospects. Although he did not define those words, we understand what he meant. I assure the right hon. Gentleman, as far as it is possible for me to do so, that the career prospects of transferred staff will not be adversely affected.—[Interruption.] They will not be financially disadvantaged at all. That is my commitment. If, for any reason, they should find themselves disadvantaged, compensation will be paid. As I said, it is right that, if the Government require a change, they should see that people are adequately protected.
The right hon. Member for South Down referred to the delay in introducing this order with respect to what has happened in Britain. I remind him that this is the third occasion when a consultation procedure has been embarked upon. It was first raised in the Province in 1971. The majority of those who responded at the time decided that the balance of advantage lay in the service remaining within the health sector. It was raised again and considered in 1976 as part of a consultative exercise on services for the mentally handicapped. At that time, also a minority of respondents took the view that special care schools should be transferred to the education sector, and the Government accepted the view of the majority that the status quo should be maintained.
Although the right hon. Member for South Down was right to say that there has been a delay, it has not been because of any dilatory approach by the Government to this matter in the Province, but it has reflected the majority view of those who not only are involved but have expertise in these matters within the Province. That is the case with the order. I remind the House that there was a large measure of agreement in the consultation process with respect to the order that the time was appropriate for a change to be made from the health sector to the education sector.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the competition for resources within the education budget. As far as possible, the Government are committed to seeing that the resources necessary to maintain, protect and develop this service in the education sector will be provided and will continue to be provided. It is fair to point out that in the health sector there was competition for resources—by definition almost, that is the case—but there is no attempt in this change to weaken the claim on resources for this important sector.
I join in the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to the dedication of the staff in this area. I assure him and the House that nothing in this move is intended in any way to make life more difficult for the dedicated professionals involved.
The right hon. Gentleman moved on to three other specific matters. He addressed article 5. Article 5 does not change the existing position in which responsibility for the curricular of schools rests with school managers and, particularly, principals. He was right to say that the article provides an enabling power for regulations which, if necessary, may lay down broad curricular principles within which schools might operate. I do not have any plans at present to make such changes. In any event, if the Government were to contemplate any such change, I assure him and the House that there would be wide consultation before any such changes were introduced.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to article 8. Frankly, the advice that I have received is that we shall have to take legal advice on whether it should be "and" or "or", but the intention is as he defined it.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to article 10 and caretakers. Teachers occupy education and library board residences as tenants of the board, and so are entitled to receive notice to quit. Caretakers are given possession of residences by virtue of their employment and are not entitled to receive notices to quit on termination of such employment. An important part of a resident caretaker's responsibility is that he should be resident. He should be available on site, day and night, to secure school premises. When his employment ends, the education and library boards require possession of the residence for his successor and should not have to wait six months to recover it. I am advised that the legal status of caretakers is the same in England and in Northern Ireland, but in England it derives from the common law.
The hon. Member for Foyle referred to those who, some time ago, transferred to the education system. I mentioned the fact that it was some time ago because it is not relevant to the order. Anybody affected by the order will have the protections that I have already spelt out to the House.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill asked three questions, one of which was asked again in a slightly different form by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. I am advised that about 1,400 children are involved.

Mr. Hume: If a member of the special care service who was trained in Muckamore and is at present in a scale 2 post is transferred to another post, will he retain his grade 2 level? From representations made to me, I understand that, if such people are transferred within the system at present, they are eligible only for scale 1 posts, and suffer as a result.

Dr. Mawhinney: My understanding is that, some time ago, some teachers chose to move from the health service into the education service. They understood the arrangements. This order does not apply to them. Anyone who is required to move under the order will not find himself at a disadvantage as a consequence.
I understand that about 1,400 children are involved in this move.
As to the provisions and prohibitions in article 5, it is a considerable time since the existing power was last used. It has certainly not been exercised in the last 10 years. That

is not to say that that power should not be available to the Department. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle is pleased to hear that this power is not frequently resorted to by the Department.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If these powers are already in existence, will the Minister explain why they have to be written into the principal order by this order?

Dr. Mawhinney: Because it is felt that it is appropriate that these matters should be brought together to clarify the Department's responsibility for these matters.
The third question that the hon. Member for Foyle asked me was echoed by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. He asked whether there will be sufficient money. I stress that the Government are making available additional resources. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough will be pleased to note that the £3 million to which I referred is not for three years; it is for the first year. That expenditure will continue, which should encourage the hon. Member for Mossley Hill.
As for the £2 million of captial expenditure, a great deal of planning will be required before we know exactly what will be needed for the capital programme. The £2 million will enable the boards to make a start, but it is not suggested that it will be sufficient to meet the capital provision that will be required as a consequence of this order.
I think that I have answered all the questions that have been asked. I am grateful for the welcome that this important order has received. It covers a small but very significant and important group of children in the Province, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

AGRICULTURAL. MARKETING

Ordered,
That the draft Amendments of the Potato Marketing Scheme 1955, as amended, which were laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Question agreed to.

Tailoring (Planning Regulations)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. John Wheeler: At this unusually early hour, I am delighted to speak on the Adjournment of the House and to have the opportunity to raise the work of the Savile Row tailors, as represented by the Federation of Merchant Tailors. I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) is in his place tonight for, as his constituents know, he is a most diligent and hard-working constituency Member of Parliament who takes the greatest possible interest in the well-being of the Savile Row tailors. However, by virtue of the high office that he holds under the Crown he is unable personally to represent their interests in this debate. In effect, I am speaking for him as well as for those of my constituents who are also employed in this trade.
It would not be appropriate for me to go further, Mr. Speaker, without making reference to your special interests in the tailors for, as the whole House knows, you have proud links with this most honourable of trades. It is a particular privilege that you should be present tonight to hear the debate.
I am particularly glad to be speaking tonight about the Savile Row tailors because the centenary of the Master Tailors' Benevolent Association was celebrated last night. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you were one of the guests of honour. The Federation of Merchant Tailors will itself celebrate its centenary in 1988.
What concerns the Savile Row tailors at present and has a direct bearing on a viable future for the trade is the proposal to amend the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order.
To put this issue into context, I shall describe the history of the bespoke tailoring industry in this country, particularly in the city of Westminster. Given the nature of our hostile climate, tailoring has been a feature of our country for some time. We all like to wear clothes. A craft trade was organised to represent the tailors' interests in the middle ages when guilds were formed, as was the custom several centuries ago. Effectively, it was the French Revolution that gave the British tailor the opportunity to lead men's fashion, and it was then that wool was introduced into quality clothing.
Early in the 19th century, bespoke tailors were to be found in the eastern part of Mayfair, which lies in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South. By the middle of the 19th century many of them were occupying premises in Savile Row. With the rise of the British empire, English tailoring and its influences were spread throughout the world—perhaps, one might say, with great advantage. One of the most lasting influences of the British empire is perhaps the gift of formal men's wear to cultures that previously were used to a type of clothing that is quite foreign to us.
Throughout this century, the United Kingdom has continued to lead in the development of formal men's wear. We have gradually seen the lounge suit become accepted business attire throughout the world. As a result. many overseas tailors have sought to perfect their craft among the tailors of Savile Row, but perhaps the most

pleasing aspect has been the development of markets throughout the world for high-class British tailoring. This has developed in a most encouraging way so that today, of the approximately £27 million that the tailoring craft earns, over £15 million of it relates to exports. That is particularly relevant to this debate.
The Savile Row area became the world's centre for high-class men's tailoring. It is also the centre for design skills of good quality men's wear. That is well understood, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. The Federation of Merchant Tailors has represented its concerns to me. and it is those concerns that I am attempting to present to the House tonight.
However, there is more to say about the tailoring trade before I look at the order. The trade has developed in such a way that it now takes a leading role in training for the industry. It is centred particularly on Savile Row. A member of the federation chairs the training and research committee of the Clothing and Allied Products Industry Training Board, which serves and influences the London Institute and the London College of Fashion. It was the Federation of Merchant Tailors that led the campaign to retain the Clothing and Allied Products Industry training board when its future was in doubt, along with many other industrial training boards. It has saved that board, whose record is unrivalled in placing in full-time employment 95 per cent. of all the young people who have completed their training on the YTS course.
Throughout the years the federation has worked closely with the leading woollen merchants in the United Kingdom, aiding and advising them on the development of ranges of their world wide markets. Indeed, they would be the first to admit that the role of the tailors in this regard has made a major contribution to their own success.
Tonight's debate is essentially about the proposal to abolish the class 3 light industrial category and to combine it with offices in a new business class. This was foreshadowed in the Government document entitled "Lifting the Burden". It is a radical development. The Department of the Environment's proposal to modernise the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1972 and to make these changes is significant, inasmuch as it would change the prospect of the rental values for properties in the Mayfair area, particularly in Savile Row. On 26 November the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning wrote to my noble Friend Lord Hanson, a successful capitalist who believes in the market of skills and enterprise. The Minister said:
However I must emphasise that one of the Federation's chief concerns—the possible increase in rental levels for tailoring premises—is a factor which we cannot take into account. In our view, we must concentrate on the public interest in amenity and the use of land.
Public interest in amenity and the use of land is the kernal of this issue. The position that the tailors occupy in London and their craft provide employment for some 3,000 people who live and work in London and who contribute to the £27 million which the trade produces in the value of its products, but also to that vital £15 million a year which goes to exports.
If the majority of the light industrial and commercial property in Savile Row is to become one business class the tailors believe that it would rapidly turn into offices and hi-tech studios and be used for other activities. If the tailoring profession is to continue to serve the interests of


Britain and contribute to world tailoring—Savile Row tailors are at the centre of that activity—a change in the use classes order will be quite devastating.
In the City of Westminster we have a mosaic of commercial activities which each relate to the other. Thus, people will stay in the hotels, visit the Oxford street retail sector, the fine art galleries, the auction houses, consult a doctor in Harley street or a consultant, consult distinguished lawyers and see a variety of commercial and professional people. The role of the bespoke tailor in Savile Row is integrated into these activities.
If, by changing the use-class order, The Savile Row tailoring community is forced away from the centre of London, that departure will damage the centre of London and the commercial activity of the City of Westminster. The City of Westminster chamber of commerce and industry, which is currently looking at this issue, is deeply concerned about this prospect. We cannot look upon these planning orders purely as matters to do with planning and the environment. We have to take into account the knock-on effect of change, and the effect of that change on the character of the commercial community, and in turn on those who work in it.
When my hon. Friend comes to reply to the debate, I would ask him to consider that particular aspect of the proposal. I am aware that his Department is still considering what should be done about "Lifting the Burden". I would like him to carry from the debate the keen message that many aspects of the change are affecting a large number of people. The tailoring trade has a long and honourable history, which is bound into the heart of London. Any change which affects their future is not necessarily a change for the best interests of the community, nor the best interests of the country. Whether the orders should be changed, and whether there should be a separate category to take account of the special needs of the occupants of premises that are used both as shops and for light industrial purposes, is an issue that I would strongly commend to my hon. Friend and his departmental colleagues as they decide about the future of the proposal.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): I am sure that all of us here, and you, Mr. Speaker, in particular, will agree that the tailors of Savile Row are fortunate to have had their interests so admirably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler). He has been supported by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who because of his high office could not put the case personally. It is good to have him here on the Treasury Bench.
May I first congratulate the Master Tailors Benevolent Association on its centenary and extend my best wishes to the Federation of Merchant Tailors when it reaches this landmark next year. The profession has rightly earned its reputation as being amongst the most highly regarded craft skills. Its image and prestige are justifiably recognised in every continent. The skill represented by the federation has been described as a special blend of art and science.
Before going any further, I think that it would be helpful if I briefly outlined the scope and purpose of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1972. The planning Acts provide that "development"—for

which planning permission is normally required—includes the making of any material change in the use of buildings or other land. But it has never been the aim of the planning system to control every small development or change of use. The general development order and use classes order together provide a wide range of freedoms which relieve the planning system of a great deal of minor administrative clutter, and ensure that there is a reasonable flexibility in the way that property is used or adopted. The use classes order does this by removing the need for a planning application if both the existing and proposed uses fall within the same use class. It is, therefore, an instrument of simplification that is as old as the planning Acts themselves. The classes have always been quite broad.
The order has not been substantially changed since 1948, and it now seems distinctly dated. The Department of the Environment therefore asked the property advisory group to look at it. We published the group's recommendations in December 1985 and at that time invited comments. In considering the use of buildings and land for commercial purposes the group took as its starting point the possibility of creating a single "employment" class. However, since that would have allowed the freedom to turn, for example, a corner shop into a shot blasting workshop or a glue factory, without prior approval, the group concluded that general arid industrial uses should be excluded. It concluded that shops should be excluded too, because of the special character of the vehicular and pedestrian traffic that they generate, and the importance of maintaining the functional character of shopping streets.
The group regarded the possibility of merging other commercial uses into a single class as posing a more challenging question. The fundamental issue which needs to be examined is the extent to which owners and users of commercial buildings should be free to decide for themselves what activities, or a combination of activities with much the same impact on the environment. could most profitably be carried on in their property from time to time, and to enable quick adaptation to the changing demands of commerce, without prior approval. We must also consider the extent to which local authorities should be able to influence the type of commercial activity carried out in their area.
A related problem is the development of new commercial uses which do not fit neatly into any use class. These are frequently referred to as "high technology" uses and embrace the manufacture of computer hardware arid software, research and development connected with computers, and the provision of consultancy and after-sales services, as well as various micro-engineering, biotechnology and pharmaceutical research, development and manufacture. These uses often involve the shifting of balance of activity between office, light industrial arid storage use which can cause confusion and difficulty when seen against the present structure of the order. There are many other uses in the same position: laboratories in general, studios, including film, television and sound recording studios, communications centres, some libraries and staff, educational and training establishments.
The property advisory group concluded that in the 1980s there was very little difference between the impact on the environment of most offices and light industry. Bat it also noted what it regarded as an unnecessary uncertainty for certain commercial firms in the need to


apply for planning permission depending on whether the primary purpose was manufacture of some kind, or primarily clerical in nature. The group therefore recommended the creation of a new business class, embracing office and light industrial uses. In the light of our consultation, we agreed with the group's conclusion that there would be wide-ranging benefit to commerce and industry if this proposal were implemented. We therefore endorsed the concept of a single business use class in our consultation paper published last June.
We are still considering the final form of the new order and in doing so we are, of course, taking very careful account of the many comments that we received in response to the consultation paper. Copies of the responses to our consultation exercise have now been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already met a deputation from the Federation of Merchant Tailors. My hon. Friend has lobbied equally persuasively on its behalf tonight. The Federation's main fear appears to be of the increased rents that it believes would result from the changes that we propose. But, in considering changes to planning legislation, we really must concentrate on issues which are relevant to the environment and amenity. It was never the purpose of the planning system to influence economic factors, such as rental levels, or to suppress the market by protecting the interests of one business from the activities of another.
The property advisory group considered the relationship between development control and property values. It took the view that the planning system is not and should not be concerned with fluctuation in the value of individual property. In its report, the group quite rightly stated that planning permission can neither be granted nor withheld on the ground that the decision in question will adversely or beneficially affect the value of any land, whether it is the land which is the subject of the application for permission, or other adjoining land, the value of which will be affected by the decision.
Of course, the way in which planning powers are exercised has sometimes had that effect of influencing economic factors such as rental levels. One example is the effect of the policies contained in the city of Westminster district plan. That plan aims to stem the loss of existing industrial floor space, in particular by maintaining certain specialised trade activities where these have links with central London. The protection of specific uses—by adopting policies which incorporate a presumption against

allowing office development displacing specialised trades—has clearly benefited the west end tailoring industry. It has served to divert pressure for other forms of commercial development away from Savile Row and, as a result, rental values have remained relatively low. The federation suggests that rents paid on industrial premises in central London are a quarter of those paid for offices.
As I have said, we concluded that the effects on amenity and environment of a change of use from light industry to offices and vice versa are generally not so significant as to warrant local authority approval in each case. We therefore included in our consultation paper a proposal to amalgamate the light industrial and office classes. Will this lead to the quadrupling of rents which the federation fears? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I think not. For a start, many of the individual leases held by the tailors limit the use of the premises to manufacturing purposes. It may be anything up to 25 years before the terms of such leases come up for renegotiation. Only then will free market rents mean office rents. Even then, will the premises be of the sort which command the premium office rents that have been quoted? Again we think not. Rental levels for office uses in Savile Row currently range from £12 to £20 a square foot, not very much above workroom and showroom rentals. There is evidence of tailors coming into Savile Row being prepared to pay these prices today.
The tailors have been in Savile Row for much longer than the planning system. I have no doubt that this specialised industry based itself there in response to market forces. Responding to market forces requires flexibility and an ability to move with the times. There is a long tradition of this in Savile Row, or the tailoring industry would not continue to be so well represented in that area.
These are some of the relevant considerations. But I stress that we have not yet reached any final decision on the shape of the revised order. We shall certainly consider extremely carefully the points that my hon. Friend made tonight. But we are not prepared to shy away from our responsibility to keep the overall planning system up to date.
If we decide to press ahead with the proposed new business class, I am confident that the tailoring industry will take this in its stride. The industry may have to review the way its operations are organised. But in our view it has the talent and foresight to be able to continue to provide the levels of excellence in both its products and its service which have so long been synonymous with Savile Row.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Nine o'clock.